affects of the text messeging
FCJ-031 Gendered, Bilingual Communication Practices: Mobile text-messaging among Hong Kong College Students
Angel Lin
Faculty of Education, Chinese University of Hong Kong
Mobile text messaging—variously known as SMS (short message service), text messaging, mobile e-mail, or texting—has become a common means of keeping in constant touch, especially among young people, in many parts of the world today. The research literature abounds with studies on the social, cultural, and communicative aspects of mobile text messaging in different sociocultural contexts in the world. In the following sections, current theoretical positions in the research literature on mobile communication will be summarised and then findings of a pilot study on the mobile text-messaging practices of university students in Hong Kong will be reported. Implications for emerging bilingual and bicultural identities and gendered sociality practices among Hong Kong young people will be discussed.
Major Theoretical Positions on the Impact of Mobile Communication Technologies: Optimism or Pessimism on Human Connectivity?
In contrast to the general celebratory optimistic tone of the promotional/advertising discourses of mobile communication companies (e.g., ‘ever closer human relationships’, ‘closer family ties’, ‘constant touch’, ‘instant and perpetual human connectivity’, and so on), cultural studies researchers generally tend to stay with a much more cautious and perhaps even pessimistic tone in their theorising of the social and cultural implications of new technologies. Although Raymond Williams was commenting on the effect of the Sony Walkman when he wrote his essay on ‘mobile privatization’ (1983), what he wrote there seems also relevant to our discussion of the potential impact of new mobile communication technologies:
There is then a unique modern condition, which I defined in an earlier book (Television: technology and cultural form, 1974) as ‘mobile privatization’. It is an ugly phrase for an unprecedented condition. What it means is that at most active social levels people are increasingly living as private small-family units, or, disrupting even that, as private and deliberately self-enclosed individuals, while at the same time there is a quite unprecedented mobility of such restricted privacies. (Williams, 1983: 129)
For Williams the new technologies only serve to further aggravate the modern human condition of ‘mobile-privatized social relations’. To illustrate what he meant, Williams used the visual image of car traffic: people insulated in their own moving (mobile) ‘shells’ (cars) communicate only with their own social networks of acquaintances (people traveling in the private car) in their own mobile ‘shells’ without any concern for other fellow human beings in other ‘shells’. There is an old Chinese saying which captures well this concern of Williams: ‘Each family only sweep the snow on their own doorway and nobody cares about the frost on other people’s roofs’. The modern and late modern condition of a diminishing sense of community and the increasing insulation of people into their own small ‘shells’ (or insulated units: houses, apartments, private cars, or nowadays private mobile phone networks) seems to be a concern that is aggravated further by new mobile communication technologies. People talk of ‘detached presence’—i.e., one can insulate oneself from other people in the surroundings and withdraw into one’s own private world by immersing oneself in the walkman world, or by talking or texting via the mobile phone.
This pessimism is echoed in a recent article on social theory in the wireless world by Cooper (2001). Quoting Heidegger’s notion of modern technology as something which ‘enframes’ or converts the world into a resource to be utilised, Cooper concluded that perpetual availability is both an advantage and disadvantage—‘You can run but you can’t hide’: the new mobile communication technologies convert people into resources—to be constantly on call/in touch is to be constantly instrumentalised by others (e.g., employees have no excuse of not answering mobile phone calls or not responding to text messages from their boss).
This pessimism is also found in youth mobile communication studies, though expressed in a slightly different way: young people’s constant use of mobile communication (e.g., mobile phoning or texting) can be seen as a symptom of a general loss of human connectivity in the modern condition, especially in highly urbanised cities. On this Lobet-Maris (2003) wrote:
For beneath the surface of this mobile phone usage there is first and foremost a rather desperate search for social existence, for a social connection in a world that appears less and less communicative to youth. For such reasons, as the research shows, about half of young people apparently would be willing to receive wireless advertising messages. These are all indications… of the need for communication that some young people feel today. The rise in importance of mobile phones and pagers among young people is perhaps the most convincing sign of a ‘disconnected’ society. (Lobet-Maris, 2003: 91)
Still others in Finland are concerned about their traditional speech culture being increasingly replaced by a new ‘shallow’ mobile communication culture. For instance, Puro (2002) expressed worries that traditional Finnish speech culture which values silence and direct, informative, matter-of-fact talk in phone conversations is now being replaced by new speech cultural practices that characterise mobile phone usage: shallow, small talk. Puro lamented ‘nokialization’ and warned of the gradual loss of the traditional Finnish way of life.
Poststructuralist researchers might be cautious about Puro’s (2002) largely structuralist, static construction of a binary, reductionist, 2-culture theory: old and new cultures, with new mobile communication technologies seen as bringing in the new culture (way of life) which replaces the old culture (way of life).
In light of the above discussion, it seems that a situated approach to the study of the impact of new communication technologies might be more useful. It might be a good idea to stay away from some general, grand narratives (whether in a pessimistic or optimistic tone) about modernity and late modernity, and to take each specific context in its own right to describe the multifarious ways in which new communication technologies interact with existing social practices. One might not want to fall into the dichotomous trap of either celebratory optimism or cautious pessimism—both are grand narratives which seem to focus mainly on some form of technological determinism, and which are likely to miss out the diverse, local, and often contradictory ways in which the impact of mobile communication technologies is played out in different sociocultural contexts of the world. For instance, recent studies on Asian youth text-messaging practices seem to end on an optimistic note about the positive uses of SMS by young people.
Studies on Youth Text-Messaging Practices in Asian societies
Few studies can be found on youth SMS practices in Asian societies. Here I shall summarise two recent studies on this topic. A recent study in Japan (Ito and Daisuke, 2003) studied the kind of social structural factors that relate to unique patterns of mobile phone usage, particularly text messaging of teenagers in Japan. It is found that Japanese teens’ penchant for text messaging is an outcome of a wide range of factors. These include the unique expressive functions and styles of this form of communication but also most importantly factors that relate to adults’ control and surveillance in particular places. Japanese youth, particularly high school students, move between the places of home, school, and urban space that are all subject to a high degree of regulation and surveillance by adults. Even public urban space is highly regulated by certain codes of social conduct and a whole range of regulatory efforts that limit or constrain young people’s ways of communication on public transport. Youth peer groups and couples lack ownership and control of place and couples and friends have few opportunities for private conversation. Mobile text-messaging has thus fulfilled an important function which provides a sense of co-presence for young people who lack the means to share some private physical space free from adults’ surveillance. The SMS communication technology thus provides an infrastructure or a tool for young Japanese teens to open up a space for safe private communication and sociality that escapes the traditional disciplining and surveillance structures and apparatus controlled by adults. Given the relative cultural proximity between Japanese sociocultural norms governing youth behaviour and those of the Hong Kong society, where it is equally crowded and difficult for young people to find their own private space free from adult surveillance, it will be interesting to see whether similar or different patterns of youth SMS practices can be found in Hong Kong.
Another recent study in Taiwan (Yeh, 2004) consisted of in-depth interviews with 11 young people, 7 male, 4 female, aged 20-25 and their phone messages were also collected for textual analysis. It is found that SMS is used to negotiate subtle gender relations, especially among couples (e.g., after quarrelling, the other does not want to hear one’s voice; avoiding embarrassment when making romantic advances or when saying ‘no’ to such advances). The informants also expressed that those messages that they will keep are usually messages that are highly private or messages that are highly meaningful.
Thus, both recent studies on Asian youth text-messaging end on an optimistic note about the positive uses of SMS by young people for gaining freedom from surveillance by adults or for negotiating subtle gender relations. This is in line with Goggin’s (2004) observation that young people took to text-messaging as a tactic of consolidating their shared culture, in distinction from the general culture dominated by their parents and other adults.
No studies on Hong Kong young people’s SMS practices, however, can be found in the literature. It is thus in the spirit of preliminary, situated exploration that a pilot study on the SMS practices of Hong Kong college students was conducted in September 2004, to take an initial look at what roles SMS might play in the everyday life of some young educated people in Hong Kong. Details of the study are presented in the next section and implications will be discussed in the final section.
Mobile Text-messaging (SMS) in Hong Kong: A Pilot Survey among College Students
Hong Kong has been one of the places with the highest penetration of mobile phone service in the world for many years. From 1998 to 2003 the number of mobile service subscribers had increased 1.5 times. The number reached 7.19 million by the end of 2003, representing a penetration rate of 106% (Source: www.info.gov.hk). Despite this high mobile phone penetration, SMS is not as widespread as in other economically developed Asian societies such as Singapore, the Philippines or South Korea. The TNS Asia Telecoms Index shows that only 43% of Hong Kong cellphone users use SMS and the average number of messages sent per user per month is only 23. This is perhaps due to the fact that Hong Kong was relatively late in introducing inter-operator SMS. There has also been little promotion of SMS by the service providers in Hong Kong. Another possible reason is that mobile phone calling is relatively cheap in Hong Kong compared with other Asian cities and so people do not need to use SMS to save on phone bills. One sociocultural reason might also be the fact that unlike other Asian societies such as Japan (Ito and Daisuke, 2003) and Korea (Kim, 2002), talking loudly (especially by adults) over the mobile phone in Hong Kong public areas seems to be a common habit among many Hong Kong people and there does not seem to be great sociocultural pressure on Hong Kongers to switch their loud mobile phone talking mode to SMS mode so as not to disturb other people in public places such as the subway or the bus. SMS can thus be said to be a still largely under-developed area in Hong Kong.
A pilot study was conducted in September 2004 to collect questionnaire responses from 455 students from three different departments (English and Communication, Business, Computer Engineering) from the City University of Hong Kong. The study aims at getting some preliminary information about: who uses SMS, how often, with whom, for what purposes, and in what language(s)? The pilot study was conducted to provide some initial data on SMS practices to inform the design of a subsequent larger-scale study including both survey and ethnographic components.
Major Findings:
Below we shall report major findings of the questionnaire survey in two sections. The first section reports findings from the descriptive statistical analysis. The second section reports findings from the inferential statistical analysis.
(1) Findings from Descriptive Statistical Analysis:
The descriptive statistics will provide us with some basic information on the common patterns of the reasons for use or non-use of SMS. The findings are elaborated in the following paragraphs.
a. Reasons for non-use of SMS:
While all of the respondents are mobile phone users, not all of them are also SMS users. Out of the 455 respondents, 110 respondents (24.2%) report that they do not use SMS. Their reasons for not using SMS are (respondents can choose multiple reasons): it is expensive (24.3%), calling is more convenient (48.6%), do not have the habit of using SMS (55%). Thus it seems that many of these non-users prefer calling than texting.
b. Heavy/Light Users:
Not all of the respondents are frequent or heavy users. 48.2% of the sample can be classified as light users and 51.8% as heavy users respectively. Light users are defined as using SMS from 5-10 times a month to 5-10 times a week and heavy users are defined as using SMS from 5-10 times a day to more than 10 times a day. It can be seen that slightly less than half of the respondents are light users and slightly more than half are heavy users.
c. Frequent recipients of text messages:
One interesting question is: When one sends an SMS message, most usually whom does she/he send it to? The frequent recipients reported are (respondents can choose multiple choices): good friends (86.1%), classmates (56.8%), boy/girl-friends (43.2%), family members (23.8%), and ordinary friends (13%). It can be seen that these college students send SMS mostly to their good friends, classmates and boy/girl friends.
d. The sex of frequent recipients:
It is interesting to note that 60.5% of these college students say they most frequently send SMS to both sexes. Only 17.4% of them say that they send SMS most frequently to recipients of the same sex and 22.1% say they send SMS most frequently to recipients of the opposite sex.
e. Frequent language(s) used in writing messages (can choose multiple choices):
As for the language they frequently use to write their messages, interestingly, the majority of them (60.6%) say they write bilingually (i.e., using both Chinese characters and English words). A large proportion of them say they write in English (40.6%) and only a small proportion of them say they write in Chinese characters (17.7%). An even smaller number of them say they use phonetic writing (i.e., using the Roman letters to write Cantonese phonetically) (11.3%).
f. Perceived impact of SMS on one’s own Chinese proficiency:
Do these college students feel that SMS has an impact on their Chinese proficiency? The majority of them report no impact (80.5%). Very few report a highly positive impact (2.2%) or a positive impact (5.7%) and slightly more of them report a negative impact (11.3%). Lastly extremely few of them report a highly negative impact (0.3%).
g. Perceived impact of SMS on one’s own English proficiency:
Likewise, the majority of the respondents report that SMS has no impact (77.7%) on their English proficiency (77.7%). Very few report a highly positive impact (0.9 %); some report a positive impact (8.9%); slightly more of them report a negative impact (11.3%), and very few report a highly negative impact (1.2%).
h. Use of built-in/downloaded graphics:
Do they use built-in or downloaded graphics when they write their messages? The majority say ‘never’ (52.9%), Some say ‘seldom’ (26.7%); slightly less say ‘sometimes’ (17.2%) and very few say ‘often’ (3.2%). Thus very few of these college students use graphics often.
i. Use of emoticons:
A related question is whether they use emoticons. 26.2% of them say ‘never’; a similar number of them (27.6%) say ‘seldom’. A slightly larger number of them say ‘sometimes’ (33.4%) but a much lower number of them say ‘often’ (12.8%) . Thus not many of them often use emoticons.
j. Which language is perceived as easier to input:
When asked what language is perceived to be easier to input, the majority of respondents say that English (74.3%) is easier to input and only 25.7% of them say Chinese is easier to input.
k. Whether one reads the message as soon as one receives it:
Do they read the message as soon as they receive it? The majority of them say ‘immediately’ (52.9%). 40.1% of them say ‘immediately most of the time’. Only 2.6% of them say ‘not immediately most of the time’. Extremely few of them say ‘not immediately’ (0.3%). A small number of them say ‘it depends on the situation’ (4.1%). Thus over 90% of the respondents read their messages always immediately or immediately most of the time.
l. Whether one replies to the message as soon as one receives it:
If they mostly read the messages immediately, do they also respond immediately? This time only 14.2 % of them say ‘immediately’. Close to half of them say ‘immediately most of the time’ (45.5%). A small number of them say ‘‘not immediately most of the time’ (8.4%) and ‘not immediately’ (3.8%). A large number of them say ‘it depends on the situation’ (28.1%). Thus close to 60% of the respondents reply always immediately or immediately most of the time.
m. Whether one has sent messages to multiple recipients:
Do they send messages to multiple recipients? The majority of them say ‘no’ (61.3%) and only 38.7% of them say ‘yes’.
n. If one has sent messages to multiple recipients, what is the nature of the message (can choose multiple options):
For those who have sent messages to multiple recipients,what is the nature of their messages? Season’s greetings/birthday greetings seem to be the popular themes (46.2%) while information messages come next (39.4%). Jokes also seem to be an option (22.7%), followed by ‘asking after’ (18.2%).
o. Whether one keeps some of the messages:
Do they keep some of the messages? The majority of them say ‘yes’ (88.1%) and only a few of them say ‘no’ (11.9%). Thus, most of them do seem to have the habit of saving some messages.
p. If one keeps some messages, what is the nature of the messages kept (can choose multiple options):
For those who report that they save some messages, what kind of messages do they usually save? Again, season’s greetings/birthday greetings seem to be the popular themes (52.5%) while romantic messages come next (43.6%). ‘Asking after’ also seem to be a popular theme (26.1%), followed by ‘jokes’ (20.1%). Only very few of them say they will save information messages (3%). Thus, it seems that those messages that they will save are largely messages with some sentimental value.
q. What kinds of purposes are SMS usually used for (can choose multiple options):
Related to the previous question is the question of what are the kinds of purposes for which they usually use SMS. Again, the majority of them report season’s greetings/birthday greetings (70.3%), followed by ‘asking after’ (62.7%), ‘giving encouragement’ (56.4%), and ‘giving thanks’ (43.9%). Some also put SMS to romantic purposes: for dating (28.5%) and for showing love (27.3%). Some also use SMS for sharing information (29.4%), and ‘jokes’ (24.4%). A few of them use SMS for making new friends (7.8%) and very few of them use SMS to join games (3.5%), for recommending a TV programme/movie/song (3.8%). Even fewer of them use SMS for business transaction or investment (0.3%), for gambling (0.9%), for calling others to vote ( 1.7%), for persuading others to vote for a certain political candidate (0.9%), for persuading others not to vote for a certain political candidate (0.6%).
r. Reasons for using SMS instead of other means of communication (can choose multiple options):
What are their reasons for using SMS instead of other means of communication such as the mobile phone? Many of them say it is more indirect and will reduce embarrassment: 33.6%; less disturbing than phone calls (72.5%); there is no need to make a call for trivial things (43.5%); it is fun (22.9%); it is romantic (21.4%); it leaves something for future pleasurable remembrance (26.1%); one can be more certain that the other party will receive the message (29.9%); one can ask the other party to send information to you to note down (e.g., when you do not have a pen to note down some information during a call) (18%); one can reach the other party around the clock (30.4%).
s. Perceived impact of SMS on relationships with your SMS interactants:
What kind of impact do they think SMS has on their relationships with their SMS interactants? The majority of them say SMS helps them to get a little closer (54.8%). 34.3% of them say SMS helps them to get closer to their interactants and only 10.9% of them say SMS has no impact on their relationships.
(2) Findings from Inferential Statistical Analysis:
In this section we shall look at the findings of the inferential statistical tests to infer the effect of the variables of (i) Gender, (ii) Age, (iii)Department, and (iv) Frequency of Use on other variables. Chi Square statistics (p < .05) show the following significant effects of Gender, Age, Academic Department and Frequency of Use. In the following sections I shall first present the numerical findings of the tests and then I shall elaborate in extended paragraphs the meanings inferred from the statistical findings.
a. Effect of Gender:
1. Use/Non-use: there is a significant effect of gender on use/non-use of SMS, with significantly more females (85.4%) than males (62.9%) using SMS.
2. Kind of recipients: significantly more males (65.6%) than females (52.3%) send SMS to their classmates whereas significantly more females (89.4%) than males (80.3%) send SMS to their good friends.
3. Gender of frequent recipients: significantly more males (33.6%) than females (15.3%) send messages to members of the opposite sex. Significantly more females (23.7%) than males (7.4%) send messages to members of the same sex. Similar proportions of males (59%) and females (60.9%) report sending messages equally frequently to members of both sexes.
4. Keeping messages: significantly more females (93.5%) than males (80.3%) report keeping some messages.
5. Sending season’s greetings / birthday greetings: significantly more females (75.3%) than males (63.9%) report sending this type of messages.
6. To make new friends: significantly more males (14.8%) than females (3.3%) report this as a purpose of using SMS.
7. Keeping some messages for future pleasurable remembrance: significantly more females (30.6%) than males (18.9%) report having this practice.
b. Effect of Age:
1. Use of SMS: a significantly greater proportion of older (defined as age 23 or above) students (90.6%) than younger (defined as age 18-22) students (73.4%) use SMS.
2. Kind of recipients: a significantly greater proportion of older students (58.3%) than younger students (41.7%) send messages to boyfriends/girlfriends, and a significantly greater proportion of older students (35.4%) than younger students (20.8%) send messages to family members.
3. Language used in writing the message: a significantly greater proportion of older students (64.6%) than younger students (37%) send messages in English. In contrast, a significantly greater proportion of younger students (64.1%) than older students (41.7%) send bilingual messages.
4. Which language is perceived as easier to input: a significantly greater proportion of older students (87.5%) than younger students (72.7%) perceive English to be easier to input. In contrast, a significantly greater proportion of younger students (27.3%) than older students (12.6%) perceive Chinese to be easier to input.
5. Kinds of messages to send: a significantly greater proportion of younger students (27.5%) than older students (10.6%) send jokes to others. In contrast, a significantly greater proportion of older students (33.3%) than younger students (20.4%) send romantic messages to others.
c. Effect of Academic Department:
1. Use/non-use of SMS: the proportion of students who are SMS users in the English and Communication (EC) Department (86.8%) is significantly higher than that in the Business (BU) Department (73.5%), which in turn is higher than that in the Computer Engineering (CE) Department (60.7%).
2. Kind of recipients: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (35.4%) than BU students (19.6%) and CE students (15.7%) send messages to family members.
3. Language used in writing the message: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (63.3%) than CE students (33.3%) and than BU students (28.5%) write messages in English. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of CE students (70.6%) than BU students (69%) and EC students (38%) write bilingual messages.
4. Use of built-in / downloaded graphics: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (63.3%) than BU students (52.5%) and CE students (34%) use built-in / downloaded graphics in their messages.
5. Kinds of messages sent: a significantly higher proportion of CE students (39.2%) than BU students (21.5%) and EC students (20.5%) send jokes.
6. Reasons for using SMS: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (46.8%) than BU students (29.1%) and CE students (21.6%) report that one of the reasons for using SMS is that it is less direct and can avoid embarrassment.
d. Effect of Frequency of Use:
1. Kind of recipients: a significantly higher proportion of light users (23.6%) than heavy users (17.8%) send messages to ordinary friends. In contrast a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (52.1%) than light users (34.4%) send messages to boyfriends/girlfriends.
2. Language used in writing the message: a significantly higher proportion of light users (45.2%) than heavy users (34.3%) write messages in English. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (66.8%) than light users (56%) write bilingual messages.
3. Whether one immediately replies to messages: a significantly higher proportion of heavy users reply to messages always immediately (17.1%) and immediately most of the time (52.7%) whereas the corresponding figures for light users are only 11.5% and 40.8% respectively.
4. Reasons for using SMS: a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (41.4%) than light users (17.9%) report that one of the reasons for using SMS is for dating; for making new friends: heavy users (15.4%) vs. light users (0.6%); for making jokes: heavy users (32%) vs. light users (17.2%); for calling the recipient to vote: heavy users (3.6%) vs. light users (0%); for it is fun: heavy users (27.8%) vs. light users (17.8%); for the reason that one can be more certain that the other party can receive the message: heavy users (36.1%) vs. light users (24.2%).
5. Impact on relationships: a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (42.4%) than light users (27.4%) report that SMS use has made their relationships with their SMS interactants closer.
Text messaging 'improves children's spelling skills'
Mobile phone text messaging can boost children’s spelling skills, according to new research.
The use of “textisms” can improve literacy among pupils by giving them extra exposure to word composition outside the school day, it was claimed.
The conclusions come despite fears that the use of abbreviations such as “CU L8R”, “Gr8” and “innit” can undermine children’s reading and writing.
Critics have suggested that text messaging can blur the boundaries between colloquialisms and standard English, with some teachers claiming that slang is now creeping into children’s school work.
But academics from Coventry University said there was “no evidence” that access to mobile phones harmed children’s literacy skills and could even have a positive impact on spelling.
In the latest study, researchers recruited 114 children aged nine and 10 from primary schools in the Midlands.
The pupils, who did not already use a mobile phone, were split into two groups.
Half were given a handset to use for texting over weekends and during the school holidays over a 10-week period. The remaining pupils formed a control group.
Academics then gave pupils a series of reading, spelling and phonological awareness tests before and after the study. Pupils’ reading and spelling was also monitored week-on-week.
The research, to be published in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning next month, found evidence of a “significant contribution of textism use to the children’s spelling development during the study”.
This study, which took account of individual differences in IQ, found higher results in test scores recorded by children using mobile phones after 10 weeks compared with the start of the study.
According to the report, the association between spelling and text messaging may be explained by the “highly phonetic nature” of the abbreviations used by children and the alphabetic awareness required for successfully decoding the words.
“It is also possible that textism use adds value because of the indirect way in which mobile phone use may be increasing children’s exposure to print outside of school,” said the report, funded by Becta, the Government’s education technology agency.
Prof Clare Wood, senior lecturer in the university’s psychology department, said: “We are now starting to see consistent evidence that children’s use of text message abbreviations has a positive impact on their spelling skills.
“There is no evidence that children’s language play when using mobile phones is damaging literacy development.”
Instant Messaging: Friend or Foe of Student Writing? by Amanda O'Connor
Introduction
With the commercial advent of the Internet and cell phones in the late 1990's, technologies such as instant messaging (IM) and text messaging (TM) have achieved increasing prevalence in our society. These types of messaging technologies are widely used among adolescents today. To cite just one personal example of this widespread usage, my friend's daughter, who is now 11 and lives in Ireland, got a cell phone last year, and, according to my friend, "was the last person in her class to get one." This is quite an amazing change, given that ten years ago, instant messaging and text messaging were in their infancy, and cell phones were only readily available as tools for roadside assistance.
Given the newness of these types of technologies, it is only in the last few years that educators have started to notice them and explore their effects on student behavior and performance. While there is supporting evidence to suggest that these technologies have a large influence on the social development of adolescents, an even more pertinent issue for classroom teachers is what effects these technologies have on the academic development of young people. In this article, I examine how students' use of text messaging technology, specifically IM, affects their writing skills. How does IM use affect students' interest in traditional writing (as learned in school)? In what ways does IM usage affect students' writing ability? How does "IM-speak" change students' views of what is considered "proper" language? How can classroom teachers build on student use of this increasingly popular technology? In this paper I provide a discussion of the current issues and current teacher practices surrounding instant messaging as it relates to student writing.
What is Instant Messaging?
Instant messaging is a form of computer "chat" that allows one to have a real time, typed "conversation" with one or more "buddies" while connected to the Internet It is an extremely fast-growing communications medium, especially among adolescents. According to a Pew report from 2001, "74% of online teens use instant messaging" (Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001, p.3), and "69% of teen instant message users use IM at least several times a week" (p.3). Given this high rate of use, which has only been increasing since the Pew report was published, IM is clearly an extremely influential element in many young people's lives.
Academic Effects of Instant Messaging
While everyone recognizes that IM is widely used by adolescents and teens in the United States, there seem to be two distinct opinions of its effect on student academics. There are those who see the use of so-called "Internet English" as a breakdown of the English language – according to a recent newspaper article, "Some teachers see the creeping abbreviations as part of a continuing assault of technology on formal written English" (Lee, 2002). Conversely, there are those who regard this same "Internet English" not only as an example of how language is constantly developing and changing, but also as a type of literacy in and of itself, which can be capitalized on to engage students in more traditional learning. As professor Barbara Bell believes, "anytime (students) are reading or writing, it's going to help" (Associated Press, 2003, p.1).
One concern about IM has to do with the "bastardization" of language. Several articles indicate that students who use messaging on a frequent basis often use bad grammar, poor punctuation, and improper abbreviations in academic writing. According to Lee (2002), "teachers say that papers are being written with shortened words, improper capitalization and punctuation, and characters like &, $ and @. " However, something that is not always considered is that these mistakes are often unintentional – when students use IM frequently, they reach a saturation point where they no longer notice the IM lingo because they are so used to seeing it. Montana Hodgen, a 16-year old high school student in Montclair, New Jersey, "was so accustomed to instant-messaging abbreviations that she often read right past them" (Lee, 2002). As she puts it, "I was so used to reading what my friends wrote to me on Instant Messenger that I didn't even realize that there was something wrong," she said. She said her ability to separate formal and informal English declined the more she used instant messages" (Lee, 2002).
This was also a problem for Carl Sharp, whose 15-year old son's summer job application read "i want 2 b a counselor because i love 2 work with kids" (Friess, 2003), and English instructor Cindy Glover, who – while teaching undergraduate freshman composition in 2002 – "spent a lot of time unteaching Internet-speak. 'My students were trying to communicate fairly academic, scholarly thoughts, but some of them didn't seem to know it's "y-o-u," not "u"'" (Freiss, 2003.) These examples give credence to Montana Hodgen's point, that heavy IM use actually changes the way students read words on a page.
Other educators take IM usage as a more positive trend, and revel in how comfortable today's kids are with writing, and how much easier it is for them to get words on a page (or, more often, screen.) Barbara Bass, director of the Maryland Writing Project, points out "For a while, people were not writing anything. Now, people are actually seeing words on paper. And that's good" (Helderman, 2003.) In fact, according to another recent newspaper article, "Instant messaging and e-mail are creating a new generation of teenage writers, accustomed to translating their every thought and feeling into words. They write more than any generation has since the days when telephone calls were rare and the mailman rounded more than once a day" (Helderman, 2003).
Gloria Jacobs, in her research, has found that not only are students writing more than they have in years, but they are also revising and editing as well. As the aforementioned article cites her, "Jacobs said too many adults dismiss online writing because they assume kids jot off anything that pops into their heads. While that is sometimes true, she said, she also saw teenagers read over messages before sending them, editing to clear up mistakes or imprecision . . . Liz [Charlton, a 13-year old seventh grader] and her classmates said they will sometimes sit in front of a computer screen for up to 10 minutes, planning a sensitive message – wording and rewording" (Helderman, 2003.)
Some educators even see the pervasiveness of the frequently-changing IM terminology as an opportunity to teach students about language evolution. Erika Karres, a teacher educator, "shows students how English has evolved since Shakespeare's time" (Lee, 2002,) using IM lingo as an example of today's speech.
It is clear from the points raised in this section that both 'sides' have valid concerns in this ongoing debate. To further address these issues, I will now turn to a more in-depth discussion of IM and its relationship to academic writing, including strategies implemented by actual classroom teachers.
Instant Messaging and Writing
One of the most interesting things about IM and other popular technologies (text messaging, video games, etc.) is that they are potentially learning tools. They can be harnessed by educators to help students learn school-related content, as is illustrated by teachers who "encourage students to use messaging shorthand to spark their thinking processes" (Lee, 2002.) Trisha Fogarty, a sixth grade teacher, states "When my children are writing first drafts, I don't care how they spell anything, as long as they are writing . . . If this lingo gets their thoughts and ideas onto paper quicker, the more power to them" (Lee, 2002). However, the same teacher indicates that "during editing and revising, she expects her students to switch to standard English" (Lee, 2002).
Other teachers have also started to capitalize on student interest in writing as "recreation" rather than "work." Robyn Jackson, a high school English teacher, has "organized an online chat room where some Gaithersburg High students meet once a week to discuss literature and writing. The students are allowed to use Internet-speak in the chat room that would never be allowed in formal writing, but the online conversations are vigorous and intelligent" (Helderman, 2003.) However, the teacher's job doesn't end there-- Jackson believes that part of her job as an educator is to help students to "switch off their informal habits when they leave the chat room" and that "this gives us a wonderful opportunity to speak to students about what language to use where" (Helderman, 2003.)
Jackson's point is the crux of the concern that educators have with IM and IM lingo. Students have trouble seeing the distinction between formal and informal writing, and consequently use informal IM abbreviations and lingo in more formal writing situations (Brown-Owens, Eason, & Lader, 2003, p.6.) However, this problem is not insurmountable. Students can be taught both to understand what constitutes correct language, and also to know when different types of language are appropriate to use. Educators sometimes believe that this level of judgment is something adolescents already have, but as Jackson points out, "I think we expect kids to get it instinctively, and they don't. It's something that has to be explicitly conveyed to children" (Helderman, 2003.)
Joylyn Hannahs, a ninth grade English teacher, told her students that "if they turned in papers written like instant messages, their grades would suffer" (Helderman, 2003.) Her threat worked. Students no longer make those same mistakes, indicating that students can learn the appropriateness of language in different situations. Robert Schrag, a communications professor, points out that "We have always implicitly taught our children different language structures and how they function in different arenas . . . We use (a different) language structure watching a basketball game than in our place of worship. Most children will understand the difference" (Friess, 2003.)
Some educators believe that this type of language misuse is the fault of the students. Obviously there are cases where this is true, as well as cases where it is not. However, regardless of the situation, teachers can work to ensure that students develop a sense of audience when writing. As Leila Christenberry, former president of the National Council of Teachers of English and a university English professor, asserts, "It's not that there's never a place for this sort of thing, but it's the difference between how you would dress to go out on Saturday night versus how you dress when you do yard work" (Friess, 2003.)
I believe that Brown-Owens, Eason, and Lader (2003) sum up the general debate on this issue very succinctly: "The dilemma, then, is how to help educators adapt literacy education to the reality that instant messaging is the dominant mode of written communication in the lives of many American teenagers" (p. 8.)
Conclusion
At this point in time, it is not possible to determine specifically the effects of instant messaging on formal writing. However, one clear conclusion is that IM is becoming an important literacy in kids' lives, and consequently one that needs to be recognized by teachers.
So how does this 'new literacy' impact classroom teaching? Probably the most important thing that teachers can do is to emphasize to students the concept of audience. Students need to understand the importance of using the appropriate language in the appropriate setting, and that who one is writing for affects the way in which one writes. For example, IM-speak is perfectly acceptable when instant messaging with someone; on the flip side it is completely unacceptable when writing a formal letter. The same thing is true of formal writing – it is appropriate in an official document, such as a school paper, but would be inappropriate in-- for example-- an online chat room.
In addition to teaching about audience, teachers can also use IM to speak to their students. As cited in the previous section, teachers have done this with some impressive results. If students understand where and when it is appropriate to use certain types of language, then allowing them to use IM-speak can be beneficial in building student-teacher relationships, in enhancing students' comfort level in school settings, and in improving academic performance.
IM lingo is evidence of the evolution of language, and as Brown-Owens, Eason, and Lader (2003) point out, teachers need to realize that – for better or for worse – IM is widely used among many adolescents and is consequently a strong influence on student academic performance. For who knows? Given its roots in other languages, sometime soon we may even be teaching IM-speak as a legitimate form of language.
The effects of texting on teen grammar
Not everyone feels this way about reading and writing and words and the like. In this day and digital age, text lingo and Internet slang is a common part of communication. When understood by both parties involved, short hand is a fast, effective way to communicate, and informal settings and casual conversations allow for such banter – but what about educational settings? Where do school papers and academic pursuits fall into the mix of things?
Let us at least acknowledge the advantages of Internet slang. If stripped to its barest definition, text lingo is, in fact, a language. It relies on the universal agreement of the creation and usage of certain words and phrases, and we have collectively collaborated on certain shorthand sayings for lingo to successfully bloom and blossom in the garden of Internet jargon.
But some of the statistics against text-messaging slang are still a little jarring. The Pew Internet and American Life Project composed a poll for teenagers, and 64 percent of 700 students admitted that text lingo and shorthand has appeared in their schoolwork.
Yet, this increase in text messaging has not led to issues and debates over poor grammar as the largest issue at hand. When asked about their most prevalent disappointment with shorthand’s effects on its users, professors complain not about lack of length or proper syntax, but the absence of substance. With text messages, we say as much as we can in a small amount of space. In formal writing and reading, however, success often lies within the indulgence of details.
So where do we go from here? Even I do not agree with banishing the world of text lingo (it would be impossible, anyway), we simply need to be able to flow freely between formal and informal exchange, and to recognize the situations they are tailored for.
So if you’re working on your graduate thesis, it might be time to strut around in your smarty-pants. But when you finally finish that paper (and how splendidly well-written it will be!) take off the bow-tie, slap on a tuxedo t-shirt, and party like a true scholar.
Danielle Argentina
Angel Lin
Faculty of Education, Chinese University of Hong Kong
Mobile text messaging—variously known as SMS (short message service), text messaging, mobile e-mail, or texting—has become a common means of keeping in constant touch, especially among young people, in many parts of the world today. The research literature abounds with studies on the social, cultural, and communicative aspects of mobile text messaging in different sociocultural contexts in the world. In the following sections, current theoretical positions in the research literature on mobile communication will be summarised and then findings of a pilot study on the mobile text-messaging practices of university students in Hong Kong will be reported. Implications for emerging bilingual and bicultural identities and gendered sociality practices among Hong Kong young people will be discussed.
Major Theoretical Positions on the Impact of Mobile Communication Technologies: Optimism or Pessimism on Human Connectivity?
In contrast to the general celebratory optimistic tone of the promotional/advertising discourses of mobile communication companies (e.g., ‘ever closer human relationships’, ‘closer family ties’, ‘constant touch’, ‘instant and perpetual human connectivity’, and so on), cultural studies researchers generally tend to stay with a much more cautious and perhaps even pessimistic tone in their theorising of the social and cultural implications of new technologies. Although Raymond Williams was commenting on the effect of the Sony Walkman when he wrote his essay on ‘mobile privatization’ (1983), what he wrote there seems also relevant to our discussion of the potential impact of new mobile communication technologies:
There is then a unique modern condition, which I defined in an earlier book (Television: technology and cultural form, 1974) as ‘mobile privatization’. It is an ugly phrase for an unprecedented condition. What it means is that at most active social levels people are increasingly living as private small-family units, or, disrupting even that, as private and deliberately self-enclosed individuals, while at the same time there is a quite unprecedented mobility of such restricted privacies. (Williams, 1983: 129)
For Williams the new technologies only serve to further aggravate the modern human condition of ‘mobile-privatized social relations’. To illustrate what he meant, Williams used the visual image of car traffic: people insulated in their own moving (mobile) ‘shells’ (cars) communicate only with their own social networks of acquaintances (people traveling in the private car) in their own mobile ‘shells’ without any concern for other fellow human beings in other ‘shells’. There is an old Chinese saying which captures well this concern of Williams: ‘Each family only sweep the snow on their own doorway and nobody cares about the frost on other people’s roofs’. The modern and late modern condition of a diminishing sense of community and the increasing insulation of people into their own small ‘shells’ (or insulated units: houses, apartments, private cars, or nowadays private mobile phone networks) seems to be a concern that is aggravated further by new mobile communication technologies. People talk of ‘detached presence’—i.e., one can insulate oneself from other people in the surroundings and withdraw into one’s own private world by immersing oneself in the walkman world, or by talking or texting via the mobile phone.
This pessimism is echoed in a recent article on social theory in the wireless world by Cooper (2001). Quoting Heidegger’s notion of modern technology as something which ‘enframes’ or converts the world into a resource to be utilised, Cooper concluded that perpetual availability is both an advantage and disadvantage—‘You can run but you can’t hide’: the new mobile communication technologies convert people into resources—to be constantly on call/in touch is to be constantly instrumentalised by others (e.g., employees have no excuse of not answering mobile phone calls or not responding to text messages from their boss).
This pessimism is also found in youth mobile communication studies, though expressed in a slightly different way: young people’s constant use of mobile communication (e.g., mobile phoning or texting) can be seen as a symptom of a general loss of human connectivity in the modern condition, especially in highly urbanised cities. On this Lobet-Maris (2003) wrote:
For beneath the surface of this mobile phone usage there is first and foremost a rather desperate search for social existence, for a social connection in a world that appears less and less communicative to youth. For such reasons, as the research shows, about half of young people apparently would be willing to receive wireless advertising messages. These are all indications… of the need for communication that some young people feel today. The rise in importance of mobile phones and pagers among young people is perhaps the most convincing sign of a ‘disconnected’ society. (Lobet-Maris, 2003: 91)
Still others in Finland are concerned about their traditional speech culture being increasingly replaced by a new ‘shallow’ mobile communication culture. For instance, Puro (2002) expressed worries that traditional Finnish speech culture which values silence and direct, informative, matter-of-fact talk in phone conversations is now being replaced by new speech cultural practices that characterise mobile phone usage: shallow, small talk. Puro lamented ‘nokialization’ and warned of the gradual loss of the traditional Finnish way of life.
Poststructuralist researchers might be cautious about Puro’s (2002) largely structuralist, static construction of a binary, reductionist, 2-culture theory: old and new cultures, with new mobile communication technologies seen as bringing in the new culture (way of life) which replaces the old culture (way of life).
In light of the above discussion, it seems that a situated approach to the study of the impact of new communication technologies might be more useful. It might be a good idea to stay away from some general, grand narratives (whether in a pessimistic or optimistic tone) about modernity and late modernity, and to take each specific context in its own right to describe the multifarious ways in which new communication technologies interact with existing social practices. One might not want to fall into the dichotomous trap of either celebratory optimism or cautious pessimism—both are grand narratives which seem to focus mainly on some form of technological determinism, and which are likely to miss out the diverse, local, and often contradictory ways in which the impact of mobile communication technologies is played out in different sociocultural contexts of the world. For instance, recent studies on Asian youth text-messaging practices seem to end on an optimistic note about the positive uses of SMS by young people.
Studies on Youth Text-Messaging Practices in Asian societies
Few studies can be found on youth SMS practices in Asian societies. Here I shall summarise two recent studies on this topic. A recent study in Japan (Ito and Daisuke, 2003) studied the kind of social structural factors that relate to unique patterns of mobile phone usage, particularly text messaging of teenagers in Japan. It is found that Japanese teens’ penchant for text messaging is an outcome of a wide range of factors. These include the unique expressive functions and styles of this form of communication but also most importantly factors that relate to adults’ control and surveillance in particular places. Japanese youth, particularly high school students, move between the places of home, school, and urban space that are all subject to a high degree of regulation and surveillance by adults. Even public urban space is highly regulated by certain codes of social conduct and a whole range of regulatory efforts that limit or constrain young people’s ways of communication on public transport. Youth peer groups and couples lack ownership and control of place and couples and friends have few opportunities for private conversation. Mobile text-messaging has thus fulfilled an important function which provides a sense of co-presence for young people who lack the means to share some private physical space free from adults’ surveillance. The SMS communication technology thus provides an infrastructure or a tool for young Japanese teens to open up a space for safe private communication and sociality that escapes the traditional disciplining and surveillance structures and apparatus controlled by adults. Given the relative cultural proximity between Japanese sociocultural norms governing youth behaviour and those of the Hong Kong society, where it is equally crowded and difficult for young people to find their own private space free from adult surveillance, it will be interesting to see whether similar or different patterns of youth SMS practices can be found in Hong Kong.
Another recent study in Taiwan (Yeh, 2004) consisted of in-depth interviews with 11 young people, 7 male, 4 female, aged 20-25 and their phone messages were also collected for textual analysis. It is found that SMS is used to negotiate subtle gender relations, especially among couples (e.g., after quarrelling, the other does not want to hear one’s voice; avoiding embarrassment when making romantic advances or when saying ‘no’ to such advances). The informants also expressed that those messages that they will keep are usually messages that are highly private or messages that are highly meaningful.
Thus, both recent studies on Asian youth text-messaging end on an optimistic note about the positive uses of SMS by young people for gaining freedom from surveillance by adults or for negotiating subtle gender relations. This is in line with Goggin’s (2004) observation that young people took to text-messaging as a tactic of consolidating their shared culture, in distinction from the general culture dominated by their parents and other adults.
No studies on Hong Kong young people’s SMS practices, however, can be found in the literature. It is thus in the spirit of preliminary, situated exploration that a pilot study on the SMS practices of Hong Kong college students was conducted in September 2004, to take an initial look at what roles SMS might play in the everyday life of some young educated people in Hong Kong. Details of the study are presented in the next section and implications will be discussed in the final section.
Mobile Text-messaging (SMS) in Hong Kong: A Pilot Survey among College Students
Hong Kong has been one of the places with the highest penetration of mobile phone service in the world for many years. From 1998 to 2003 the number of mobile service subscribers had increased 1.5 times. The number reached 7.19 million by the end of 2003, representing a penetration rate of 106% (Source: www.info.gov.hk). Despite this high mobile phone penetration, SMS is not as widespread as in other economically developed Asian societies such as Singapore, the Philippines or South Korea. The TNS Asia Telecoms Index shows that only 43% of Hong Kong cellphone users use SMS and the average number of messages sent per user per month is only 23. This is perhaps due to the fact that Hong Kong was relatively late in introducing inter-operator SMS. There has also been little promotion of SMS by the service providers in Hong Kong. Another possible reason is that mobile phone calling is relatively cheap in Hong Kong compared with other Asian cities and so people do not need to use SMS to save on phone bills. One sociocultural reason might also be the fact that unlike other Asian societies such as Japan (Ito and Daisuke, 2003) and Korea (Kim, 2002), talking loudly (especially by adults) over the mobile phone in Hong Kong public areas seems to be a common habit among many Hong Kong people and there does not seem to be great sociocultural pressure on Hong Kongers to switch their loud mobile phone talking mode to SMS mode so as not to disturb other people in public places such as the subway or the bus. SMS can thus be said to be a still largely under-developed area in Hong Kong.
A pilot study was conducted in September 2004 to collect questionnaire responses from 455 students from three different departments (English and Communication, Business, Computer Engineering) from the City University of Hong Kong. The study aims at getting some preliminary information about: who uses SMS, how often, with whom, for what purposes, and in what language(s)? The pilot study was conducted to provide some initial data on SMS practices to inform the design of a subsequent larger-scale study including both survey and ethnographic components.
Major Findings:
Below we shall report major findings of the questionnaire survey in two sections. The first section reports findings from the descriptive statistical analysis. The second section reports findings from the inferential statistical analysis.
(1) Findings from Descriptive Statistical Analysis:
The descriptive statistics will provide us with some basic information on the common patterns of the reasons for use or non-use of SMS. The findings are elaborated in the following paragraphs.
a. Reasons for non-use of SMS:
While all of the respondents are mobile phone users, not all of them are also SMS users. Out of the 455 respondents, 110 respondents (24.2%) report that they do not use SMS. Their reasons for not using SMS are (respondents can choose multiple reasons): it is expensive (24.3%), calling is more convenient (48.6%), do not have the habit of using SMS (55%). Thus it seems that many of these non-users prefer calling than texting.
b. Heavy/Light Users:
Not all of the respondents are frequent or heavy users. 48.2% of the sample can be classified as light users and 51.8% as heavy users respectively. Light users are defined as using SMS from 5-10 times a month to 5-10 times a week and heavy users are defined as using SMS from 5-10 times a day to more than 10 times a day. It can be seen that slightly less than half of the respondents are light users and slightly more than half are heavy users.
c. Frequent recipients of text messages:
One interesting question is: When one sends an SMS message, most usually whom does she/he send it to? The frequent recipients reported are (respondents can choose multiple choices): good friends (86.1%), classmates (56.8%), boy/girl-friends (43.2%), family members (23.8%), and ordinary friends (13%). It can be seen that these college students send SMS mostly to their good friends, classmates and boy/girl friends.
d. The sex of frequent recipients:
It is interesting to note that 60.5% of these college students say they most frequently send SMS to both sexes. Only 17.4% of them say that they send SMS most frequently to recipients of the same sex and 22.1% say they send SMS most frequently to recipients of the opposite sex.
e. Frequent language(s) used in writing messages (can choose multiple choices):
As for the language they frequently use to write their messages, interestingly, the majority of them (60.6%) say they write bilingually (i.e., using both Chinese characters and English words). A large proportion of them say they write in English (40.6%) and only a small proportion of them say they write in Chinese characters (17.7%). An even smaller number of them say they use phonetic writing (i.e., using the Roman letters to write Cantonese phonetically) (11.3%).
f. Perceived impact of SMS on one’s own Chinese proficiency:
Do these college students feel that SMS has an impact on their Chinese proficiency? The majority of them report no impact (80.5%). Very few report a highly positive impact (2.2%) or a positive impact (5.7%) and slightly more of them report a negative impact (11.3%). Lastly extremely few of them report a highly negative impact (0.3%).
g. Perceived impact of SMS on one’s own English proficiency:
Likewise, the majority of the respondents report that SMS has no impact (77.7%) on their English proficiency (77.7%). Very few report a highly positive impact (0.9 %); some report a positive impact (8.9%); slightly more of them report a negative impact (11.3%), and very few report a highly negative impact (1.2%).
h. Use of built-in/downloaded graphics:
Do they use built-in or downloaded graphics when they write their messages? The majority say ‘never’ (52.9%), Some say ‘seldom’ (26.7%); slightly less say ‘sometimes’ (17.2%) and very few say ‘often’ (3.2%). Thus very few of these college students use graphics often.
i. Use of emoticons:
A related question is whether they use emoticons. 26.2% of them say ‘never’; a similar number of them (27.6%) say ‘seldom’. A slightly larger number of them say ‘sometimes’ (33.4%) but a much lower number of them say ‘often’ (12.8%) . Thus not many of them often use emoticons.
j. Which language is perceived as easier to input:
When asked what language is perceived to be easier to input, the majority of respondents say that English (74.3%) is easier to input and only 25.7% of them say Chinese is easier to input.
k. Whether one reads the message as soon as one receives it:
Do they read the message as soon as they receive it? The majority of them say ‘immediately’ (52.9%). 40.1% of them say ‘immediately most of the time’. Only 2.6% of them say ‘not immediately most of the time’. Extremely few of them say ‘not immediately’ (0.3%). A small number of them say ‘it depends on the situation’ (4.1%). Thus over 90% of the respondents read their messages always immediately or immediately most of the time.
l. Whether one replies to the message as soon as one receives it:
If they mostly read the messages immediately, do they also respond immediately? This time only 14.2 % of them say ‘immediately’. Close to half of them say ‘immediately most of the time’ (45.5%). A small number of them say ‘‘not immediately most of the time’ (8.4%) and ‘not immediately’ (3.8%). A large number of them say ‘it depends on the situation’ (28.1%). Thus close to 60% of the respondents reply always immediately or immediately most of the time.
m. Whether one has sent messages to multiple recipients:
Do they send messages to multiple recipients? The majority of them say ‘no’ (61.3%) and only 38.7% of them say ‘yes’.
n. If one has sent messages to multiple recipients, what is the nature of the message (can choose multiple options):
For those who have sent messages to multiple recipients,what is the nature of their messages? Season’s greetings/birthday greetings seem to be the popular themes (46.2%) while information messages come next (39.4%). Jokes also seem to be an option (22.7%), followed by ‘asking after’ (18.2%).
o. Whether one keeps some of the messages:
Do they keep some of the messages? The majority of them say ‘yes’ (88.1%) and only a few of them say ‘no’ (11.9%). Thus, most of them do seem to have the habit of saving some messages.
p. If one keeps some messages, what is the nature of the messages kept (can choose multiple options):
For those who report that they save some messages, what kind of messages do they usually save? Again, season’s greetings/birthday greetings seem to be the popular themes (52.5%) while romantic messages come next (43.6%). ‘Asking after’ also seem to be a popular theme (26.1%), followed by ‘jokes’ (20.1%). Only very few of them say they will save information messages (3%). Thus, it seems that those messages that they will save are largely messages with some sentimental value.
q. What kinds of purposes are SMS usually used for (can choose multiple options):
Related to the previous question is the question of what are the kinds of purposes for which they usually use SMS. Again, the majority of them report season’s greetings/birthday greetings (70.3%), followed by ‘asking after’ (62.7%), ‘giving encouragement’ (56.4%), and ‘giving thanks’ (43.9%). Some also put SMS to romantic purposes: for dating (28.5%) and for showing love (27.3%). Some also use SMS for sharing information (29.4%), and ‘jokes’ (24.4%). A few of them use SMS for making new friends (7.8%) and very few of them use SMS to join games (3.5%), for recommending a TV programme/movie/song (3.8%). Even fewer of them use SMS for business transaction or investment (0.3%), for gambling (0.9%), for calling others to vote ( 1.7%), for persuading others to vote for a certain political candidate (0.9%), for persuading others not to vote for a certain political candidate (0.6%).
r. Reasons for using SMS instead of other means of communication (can choose multiple options):
What are their reasons for using SMS instead of other means of communication such as the mobile phone? Many of them say it is more indirect and will reduce embarrassment: 33.6%; less disturbing than phone calls (72.5%); there is no need to make a call for trivial things (43.5%); it is fun (22.9%); it is romantic (21.4%); it leaves something for future pleasurable remembrance (26.1%); one can be more certain that the other party will receive the message (29.9%); one can ask the other party to send information to you to note down (e.g., when you do not have a pen to note down some information during a call) (18%); one can reach the other party around the clock (30.4%).
s. Perceived impact of SMS on relationships with your SMS interactants:
What kind of impact do they think SMS has on their relationships with their SMS interactants? The majority of them say SMS helps them to get a little closer (54.8%). 34.3% of them say SMS helps them to get closer to their interactants and only 10.9% of them say SMS has no impact on their relationships.
(2) Findings from Inferential Statistical Analysis:
In this section we shall look at the findings of the inferential statistical tests to infer the effect of the variables of (i) Gender, (ii) Age, (iii)Department, and (iv) Frequency of Use on other variables. Chi Square statistics (p < .05) show the following significant effects of Gender, Age, Academic Department and Frequency of Use. In the following sections I shall first present the numerical findings of the tests and then I shall elaborate in extended paragraphs the meanings inferred from the statistical findings.
a. Effect of Gender:
1. Use/Non-use: there is a significant effect of gender on use/non-use of SMS, with significantly more females (85.4%) than males (62.9%) using SMS.
2. Kind of recipients: significantly more males (65.6%) than females (52.3%) send SMS to their classmates whereas significantly more females (89.4%) than males (80.3%) send SMS to their good friends.
3. Gender of frequent recipients: significantly more males (33.6%) than females (15.3%) send messages to members of the opposite sex. Significantly more females (23.7%) than males (7.4%) send messages to members of the same sex. Similar proportions of males (59%) and females (60.9%) report sending messages equally frequently to members of both sexes.
4. Keeping messages: significantly more females (93.5%) than males (80.3%) report keeping some messages.
5. Sending season’s greetings / birthday greetings: significantly more females (75.3%) than males (63.9%) report sending this type of messages.
6. To make new friends: significantly more males (14.8%) than females (3.3%) report this as a purpose of using SMS.
7. Keeping some messages for future pleasurable remembrance: significantly more females (30.6%) than males (18.9%) report having this practice.
b. Effect of Age:
1. Use of SMS: a significantly greater proportion of older (defined as age 23 or above) students (90.6%) than younger (defined as age 18-22) students (73.4%) use SMS.
2. Kind of recipients: a significantly greater proportion of older students (58.3%) than younger students (41.7%) send messages to boyfriends/girlfriends, and a significantly greater proportion of older students (35.4%) than younger students (20.8%) send messages to family members.
3. Language used in writing the message: a significantly greater proportion of older students (64.6%) than younger students (37%) send messages in English. In contrast, a significantly greater proportion of younger students (64.1%) than older students (41.7%) send bilingual messages.
4. Which language is perceived as easier to input: a significantly greater proportion of older students (87.5%) than younger students (72.7%) perceive English to be easier to input. In contrast, a significantly greater proportion of younger students (27.3%) than older students (12.6%) perceive Chinese to be easier to input.
5. Kinds of messages to send: a significantly greater proportion of younger students (27.5%) than older students (10.6%) send jokes to others. In contrast, a significantly greater proportion of older students (33.3%) than younger students (20.4%) send romantic messages to others.
c. Effect of Academic Department:
1. Use/non-use of SMS: the proportion of students who are SMS users in the English and Communication (EC) Department (86.8%) is significantly higher than that in the Business (BU) Department (73.5%), which in turn is higher than that in the Computer Engineering (CE) Department (60.7%).
2. Kind of recipients: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (35.4%) than BU students (19.6%) and CE students (15.7%) send messages to family members.
3. Language used in writing the message: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (63.3%) than CE students (33.3%) and than BU students (28.5%) write messages in English. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of CE students (70.6%) than BU students (69%) and EC students (38%) write bilingual messages.
4. Use of built-in / downloaded graphics: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (63.3%) than BU students (52.5%) and CE students (34%) use built-in / downloaded graphics in their messages.
5. Kinds of messages sent: a significantly higher proportion of CE students (39.2%) than BU students (21.5%) and EC students (20.5%) send jokes.
6. Reasons for using SMS: a significantly higher proportion of EC students (46.8%) than BU students (29.1%) and CE students (21.6%) report that one of the reasons for using SMS is that it is less direct and can avoid embarrassment.
d. Effect of Frequency of Use:
1. Kind of recipients: a significantly higher proportion of light users (23.6%) than heavy users (17.8%) send messages to ordinary friends. In contrast a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (52.1%) than light users (34.4%) send messages to boyfriends/girlfriends.
2. Language used in writing the message: a significantly higher proportion of light users (45.2%) than heavy users (34.3%) write messages in English. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (66.8%) than light users (56%) write bilingual messages.
3. Whether one immediately replies to messages: a significantly higher proportion of heavy users reply to messages always immediately (17.1%) and immediately most of the time (52.7%) whereas the corresponding figures for light users are only 11.5% and 40.8% respectively.
4. Reasons for using SMS: a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (41.4%) than light users (17.9%) report that one of the reasons for using SMS is for dating; for making new friends: heavy users (15.4%) vs. light users (0.6%); for making jokes: heavy users (32%) vs. light users (17.2%); for calling the recipient to vote: heavy users (3.6%) vs. light users (0%); for it is fun: heavy users (27.8%) vs. light users (17.8%); for the reason that one can be more certain that the other party can receive the message: heavy users (36.1%) vs. light users (24.2%).
5. Impact on relationships: a significantly higher proportion of heavy users (42.4%) than light users (27.4%) report that SMS use has made their relationships with their SMS interactants closer.
Text messaging 'improves children's spelling skills'
Mobile phone text messaging can boost children’s spelling skills, according to new research.
The use of “textisms” can improve literacy among pupils by giving them extra exposure to word composition outside the school day, it was claimed.
The conclusions come despite fears that the use of abbreviations such as “CU L8R”, “Gr8” and “innit” can undermine children’s reading and writing.
Critics have suggested that text messaging can blur the boundaries between colloquialisms and standard English, with some teachers claiming that slang is now creeping into children’s school work.
But academics from Coventry University said there was “no evidence” that access to mobile phones harmed children’s literacy skills and could even have a positive impact on spelling.
In the latest study, researchers recruited 114 children aged nine and 10 from primary schools in the Midlands.
The pupils, who did not already use a mobile phone, were split into two groups.
Half were given a handset to use for texting over weekends and during the school holidays over a 10-week period. The remaining pupils formed a control group.
Academics then gave pupils a series of reading, spelling and phonological awareness tests before and after the study. Pupils’ reading and spelling was also monitored week-on-week.
The research, to be published in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning next month, found evidence of a “significant contribution of textism use to the children’s spelling development during the study”.
This study, which took account of individual differences in IQ, found higher results in test scores recorded by children using mobile phones after 10 weeks compared with the start of the study.
According to the report, the association between spelling and text messaging may be explained by the “highly phonetic nature” of the abbreviations used by children and the alphabetic awareness required for successfully decoding the words.
“It is also possible that textism use adds value because of the indirect way in which mobile phone use may be increasing children’s exposure to print outside of school,” said the report, funded by Becta, the Government’s education technology agency.
Prof Clare Wood, senior lecturer in the university’s psychology department, said: “We are now starting to see consistent evidence that children’s use of text message abbreviations has a positive impact on their spelling skills.
“There is no evidence that children’s language play when using mobile phones is damaging literacy development.”
Instant Messaging: Friend or Foe of Student Writing? by Amanda O'Connor
Introduction
With the commercial advent of the Internet and cell phones in the late 1990's, technologies such as instant messaging (IM) and text messaging (TM) have achieved increasing prevalence in our society. These types of messaging technologies are widely used among adolescents today. To cite just one personal example of this widespread usage, my friend's daughter, who is now 11 and lives in Ireland, got a cell phone last year, and, according to my friend, "was the last person in her class to get one." This is quite an amazing change, given that ten years ago, instant messaging and text messaging were in their infancy, and cell phones were only readily available as tools for roadside assistance.
Given the newness of these types of technologies, it is only in the last few years that educators have started to notice them and explore their effects on student behavior and performance. While there is supporting evidence to suggest that these technologies have a large influence on the social development of adolescents, an even more pertinent issue for classroom teachers is what effects these technologies have on the academic development of young people. In this article, I examine how students' use of text messaging technology, specifically IM, affects their writing skills. How does IM use affect students' interest in traditional writing (as learned in school)? In what ways does IM usage affect students' writing ability? How does "IM-speak" change students' views of what is considered "proper" language? How can classroom teachers build on student use of this increasingly popular technology? In this paper I provide a discussion of the current issues and current teacher practices surrounding instant messaging as it relates to student writing.
What is Instant Messaging?
Instant messaging is a form of computer "chat" that allows one to have a real time, typed "conversation" with one or more "buddies" while connected to the Internet It is an extremely fast-growing communications medium, especially among adolescents. According to a Pew report from 2001, "74% of online teens use instant messaging" (Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001, p.3), and "69% of teen instant message users use IM at least several times a week" (p.3). Given this high rate of use, which has only been increasing since the Pew report was published, IM is clearly an extremely influential element in many young people's lives.
Academic Effects of Instant Messaging
While everyone recognizes that IM is widely used by adolescents and teens in the United States, there seem to be two distinct opinions of its effect on student academics. There are those who see the use of so-called "Internet English" as a breakdown of the English language – according to a recent newspaper article, "Some teachers see the creeping abbreviations as part of a continuing assault of technology on formal written English" (Lee, 2002). Conversely, there are those who regard this same "Internet English" not only as an example of how language is constantly developing and changing, but also as a type of literacy in and of itself, which can be capitalized on to engage students in more traditional learning. As professor Barbara Bell believes, "anytime (students) are reading or writing, it's going to help" (Associated Press, 2003, p.1).
One concern about IM has to do with the "bastardization" of language. Several articles indicate that students who use messaging on a frequent basis often use bad grammar, poor punctuation, and improper abbreviations in academic writing. According to Lee (2002), "teachers say that papers are being written with shortened words, improper capitalization and punctuation, and characters like &, $ and @. " However, something that is not always considered is that these mistakes are often unintentional – when students use IM frequently, they reach a saturation point where they no longer notice the IM lingo because they are so used to seeing it. Montana Hodgen, a 16-year old high school student in Montclair, New Jersey, "was so accustomed to instant-messaging abbreviations that she often read right past them" (Lee, 2002). As she puts it, "I was so used to reading what my friends wrote to me on Instant Messenger that I didn't even realize that there was something wrong," she said. She said her ability to separate formal and informal English declined the more she used instant messages" (Lee, 2002).
This was also a problem for Carl Sharp, whose 15-year old son's summer job application read "i want 2 b a counselor because i love 2 work with kids" (Friess, 2003), and English instructor Cindy Glover, who – while teaching undergraduate freshman composition in 2002 – "spent a lot of time unteaching Internet-speak. 'My students were trying to communicate fairly academic, scholarly thoughts, but some of them didn't seem to know it's "y-o-u," not "u"'" (Freiss, 2003.) These examples give credence to Montana Hodgen's point, that heavy IM use actually changes the way students read words on a page.
Other educators take IM usage as a more positive trend, and revel in how comfortable today's kids are with writing, and how much easier it is for them to get words on a page (or, more often, screen.) Barbara Bass, director of the Maryland Writing Project, points out "For a while, people were not writing anything. Now, people are actually seeing words on paper. And that's good" (Helderman, 2003.) In fact, according to another recent newspaper article, "Instant messaging and e-mail are creating a new generation of teenage writers, accustomed to translating their every thought and feeling into words. They write more than any generation has since the days when telephone calls were rare and the mailman rounded more than once a day" (Helderman, 2003).
Gloria Jacobs, in her research, has found that not only are students writing more than they have in years, but they are also revising and editing as well. As the aforementioned article cites her, "Jacobs said too many adults dismiss online writing because they assume kids jot off anything that pops into their heads. While that is sometimes true, she said, she also saw teenagers read over messages before sending them, editing to clear up mistakes or imprecision . . . Liz [Charlton, a 13-year old seventh grader] and her classmates said they will sometimes sit in front of a computer screen for up to 10 minutes, planning a sensitive message – wording and rewording" (Helderman, 2003.)
Some educators even see the pervasiveness of the frequently-changing IM terminology as an opportunity to teach students about language evolution. Erika Karres, a teacher educator, "shows students how English has evolved since Shakespeare's time" (Lee, 2002,) using IM lingo as an example of today's speech.
It is clear from the points raised in this section that both 'sides' have valid concerns in this ongoing debate. To further address these issues, I will now turn to a more in-depth discussion of IM and its relationship to academic writing, including strategies implemented by actual classroom teachers.
Instant Messaging and Writing
One of the most interesting things about IM and other popular technologies (text messaging, video games, etc.) is that they are potentially learning tools. They can be harnessed by educators to help students learn school-related content, as is illustrated by teachers who "encourage students to use messaging shorthand to spark their thinking processes" (Lee, 2002.) Trisha Fogarty, a sixth grade teacher, states "When my children are writing first drafts, I don't care how they spell anything, as long as they are writing . . . If this lingo gets their thoughts and ideas onto paper quicker, the more power to them" (Lee, 2002). However, the same teacher indicates that "during editing and revising, she expects her students to switch to standard English" (Lee, 2002).
Other teachers have also started to capitalize on student interest in writing as "recreation" rather than "work." Robyn Jackson, a high school English teacher, has "organized an online chat room where some Gaithersburg High students meet once a week to discuss literature and writing. The students are allowed to use Internet-speak in the chat room that would never be allowed in formal writing, but the online conversations are vigorous and intelligent" (Helderman, 2003.) However, the teacher's job doesn't end there-- Jackson believes that part of her job as an educator is to help students to "switch off their informal habits when they leave the chat room" and that "this gives us a wonderful opportunity to speak to students about what language to use where" (Helderman, 2003.)
Jackson's point is the crux of the concern that educators have with IM and IM lingo. Students have trouble seeing the distinction between formal and informal writing, and consequently use informal IM abbreviations and lingo in more formal writing situations (Brown-Owens, Eason, & Lader, 2003, p.6.) However, this problem is not insurmountable. Students can be taught both to understand what constitutes correct language, and also to know when different types of language are appropriate to use. Educators sometimes believe that this level of judgment is something adolescents already have, but as Jackson points out, "I think we expect kids to get it instinctively, and they don't. It's something that has to be explicitly conveyed to children" (Helderman, 2003.)
Joylyn Hannahs, a ninth grade English teacher, told her students that "if they turned in papers written like instant messages, their grades would suffer" (Helderman, 2003.) Her threat worked. Students no longer make those same mistakes, indicating that students can learn the appropriateness of language in different situations. Robert Schrag, a communications professor, points out that "We have always implicitly taught our children different language structures and how they function in different arenas . . . We use (a different) language structure watching a basketball game than in our place of worship. Most children will understand the difference" (Friess, 2003.)
Some educators believe that this type of language misuse is the fault of the students. Obviously there are cases where this is true, as well as cases where it is not. However, regardless of the situation, teachers can work to ensure that students develop a sense of audience when writing. As Leila Christenberry, former president of the National Council of Teachers of English and a university English professor, asserts, "It's not that there's never a place for this sort of thing, but it's the difference between how you would dress to go out on Saturday night versus how you dress when you do yard work" (Friess, 2003.)
I believe that Brown-Owens, Eason, and Lader (2003) sum up the general debate on this issue very succinctly: "The dilemma, then, is how to help educators adapt literacy education to the reality that instant messaging is the dominant mode of written communication in the lives of many American teenagers" (p. 8.)
Conclusion
At this point in time, it is not possible to determine specifically the effects of instant messaging on formal writing. However, one clear conclusion is that IM is becoming an important literacy in kids' lives, and consequently one that needs to be recognized by teachers.
So how does this 'new literacy' impact classroom teaching? Probably the most important thing that teachers can do is to emphasize to students the concept of audience. Students need to understand the importance of using the appropriate language in the appropriate setting, and that who one is writing for affects the way in which one writes. For example, IM-speak is perfectly acceptable when instant messaging with someone; on the flip side it is completely unacceptable when writing a formal letter. The same thing is true of formal writing – it is appropriate in an official document, such as a school paper, but would be inappropriate in-- for example-- an online chat room.
In addition to teaching about audience, teachers can also use IM to speak to their students. As cited in the previous section, teachers have done this with some impressive results. If students understand where and when it is appropriate to use certain types of language, then allowing them to use IM-speak can be beneficial in building student-teacher relationships, in enhancing students' comfort level in school settings, and in improving academic performance.
IM lingo is evidence of the evolution of language, and as Brown-Owens, Eason, and Lader (2003) point out, teachers need to realize that – for better or for worse – IM is widely used among many adolescents and is consequently a strong influence on student academic performance. For who knows? Given its roots in other languages, sometime soon we may even be teaching IM-speak as a legitimate form of language.
The effects of texting on teen grammar
Not everyone feels this way about reading and writing and words and the like. In this day and digital age, text lingo and Internet slang is a common part of communication. When understood by both parties involved, short hand is a fast, effective way to communicate, and informal settings and casual conversations allow for such banter – but what about educational settings? Where do school papers and academic pursuits fall into the mix of things?
Let us at least acknowledge the advantages of Internet slang. If stripped to its barest definition, text lingo is, in fact, a language. It relies on the universal agreement of the creation and usage of certain words and phrases, and we have collectively collaborated on certain shorthand sayings for lingo to successfully bloom and blossom in the garden of Internet jargon.
But some of the statistics against text-messaging slang are still a little jarring. The Pew Internet and American Life Project composed a poll for teenagers, and 64 percent of 700 students admitted that text lingo and shorthand has appeared in their schoolwork.
Yet, this increase in text messaging has not led to issues and debates over poor grammar as the largest issue at hand. When asked about their most prevalent disappointment with shorthand’s effects on its users, professors complain not about lack of length or proper syntax, but the absence of substance. With text messages, we say as much as we can in a small amount of space. In formal writing and reading, however, success often lies within the indulgence of details.
So where do we go from here? Even I do not agree with banishing the world of text lingo (it would be impossible, anyway), we simply need to be able to flow freely between formal and informal exchange, and to recognize the situations they are tailored for.
So if you’re working on your graduate thesis, it might be time to strut around in your smarty-pants. But when you finally finish that paper (and how splendidly well-written it will be!) take off the bow-tie, slap on a tuxedo t-shirt, and party like a true scholar.
Danielle Argentina
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Sociocultural: In the past thirty years, the evolution of the cellular mobile device market has had a vast impact on the interactional behaviour within society. With mass availability and affordability of…
- 1566 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
Text messaging has become an integral part of our lives; it has developed very rapidly throughout the world. With the uprising of new forms of communication that technology has introduced comes a debate on what effect these new digital mediums have on literacy. Text messaging is fastly becoming a primary form of communication for various numbers of people around the world. The mainstream media claims that the short hand and abbreviated characteristics of text messaging are making children lazy, not forcing them to use the proper grammar they learn in school. Feldman states that texting has become so popular that many have taken to calling today’s teens “generation text.” Texting is defined as the use of abbreviations and other techniques to craft messages sent through the cell phone. Texting does not always follow the standard rules of English grammar, nor usual word spellings. Literacy refers to more than reading and writing printed language. Plester, Wood and Joshi define literacy as the ability to decode information in various orthographic formats, including digital media, to make meaning from it, and to encode information into those formats to communicate ideas to others (3).…
- 1047 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
In the 1990s an implicit and often explicit assumption was that new media was going to replace the old media and Internet was going to replace broadcasting. The social function of the cell phone changes as the technology converges. Because of Technological advancement, cell phones…
- 339 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
The article I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language, by John Humphrys, addresses text messaging as a threat to people's ability to engage formally in use of the English language; especially in the younger generation. John Humphrys takes a unique perspective when analyzing the practice of text messaging. Humphrys focuses on the present and mainstream uses of text messaging, without analyzing the historical processes and the language values of the so called text speak. This paper will argue against John Humphrys' claim. Text messaging is a valid form of language as it; has been created through historical and social processes; holds a set of unique and evolving characteristics; and therefore in no way harmful to the users' abilities to use the English language.…
- 1410 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Shannon, Victoria. "15 Years of Text Messaging, a 'cultural Phenomenon '" The New York Times. 5 Dec. 2007. Web. 8 Mar. 2012. .…
- 1783 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
Text messaging, also referred to as SMS messaging, is a popular form of mediated, interpersonal communication that involves sending short messages to and from individual’s cell phones through a or cellular connection to converse with individuals at anyplace and anytime all over the world. Created in 1992 by Neil Papworth, an engineer for Vodaphone, a software company in England, the first text message was sent by Papworth to an executive of the company attending a Christmas party in a separate building; the message of the first ever text message simply read, “Merry Christmas”, it wouldn’t be until the next year that texting would be available to the general public (Peritz, 2012). So at mere 23 years old, Texting is one of the youngest mediums…
- 1150 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
In his article, Thomas L. Friedman writes about his latest trip to Paris where he got picked up by a taxi driver who seemed to be totally biased by his mobile phone. During their drive to the author’s hotel, he found out that the taxi driver was probably communicating with his family in Africa all the time – while he didn’t exchange a single word with Friedman. Even though it is a great thing that the driver can keep in touch with his family, Friedman states that this is the way modern technology is dividing people who are just next to you.…
- 187 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays -
social absences, and social dependency (Reid and Reid, 2004). In addition to these ideas, it has…
- 3737 Words
- 15 Pages
Best Essays -
The digital divide is beginning to close. The flow of digital information – through mobile phones, text messaging, and the Internet – is now reaching the world’s masses, even in the poorest countries, bringing with it a revolution in economics, politics, and society. In my opinion, the technological innovation that has had the greatest impact on our lives in this country today would be the mobile telecommunication technology. For the last ten to fifteen years, mobile phones have changed our lives in such a way that no other technological change has before. Earlier, people used to book telephone calls in advance, had to go and use near the telephone booths, or sit beside a physical telephone instrument kept in the drawing room of a house, and attend to, or make calls stuck to a place. Now, people simply carry a 200 gram device in their pockets and can travel the world, always connected to their loved ones and business partners, no matter in whatever remote part of the world they are. (However, in certain countries, mobile coverage does...…
- 317 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Starting in the late 1980s, The European public telephone network and the European Community and European Telecommunications Standards Institute developed the GSM, which is most similar to what we call “cell phones” today. This phone drastically changed the communications world with the ability to place international calls, send SMS texts, and even had luxuries like caller ID and voicemail, which we all take for granted now. This phone started a revolution that is still changing everyday, with newer and better phones releasing every month with the latest technology and sleek designs. Texting has its own language, customs, and ways of doing things. There are known rules when it comes to texting, which I believe makes it rhetorical. Text messaging is a new medium of expression, one that is changing the dynamic of communication rapidly, especially between parents and their children.…
- 1207 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Tagg, Caroline. The Discourse of Text Messaging: Analysis of Text Message Communication. London: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2012.…
- 427 Words
- 2 Pages
Best Essays -
In today’s society, texting benefits many teenagers as it is a useful tool for quick and easy communication. In addition, texting is a learning hub and a way for teens to interact among their peers using their own knowledge. Texting is the preferred form of digital communication among all age groups, especially teens who have adopted texting as their “favored communication hub” (Lenhart, Ling,…
- 917 Words
- 4 Pages
Powerful Essays -
SMS (or text messaging) is very popular. A study by OFCOM (who work in the UK communications industry) have found that in the UK in 2014 around 150 billion text messages were sent that year. Users are from all age groups, however it is most common in the 14-20 year old age category. On the apps you can use emoji’s to make it easier to express emotions and make it more like a face to face conversation. However messaging is causing a huge debate; some people love it but some loathe it. An article written by John Humphrey in the Daily mail called ‘I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language’. However Graeme Patton form the Telegraph newspaper took a different view; his article was Text messaging 'improves children's spelling skills'…
- 856 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The digital divide is beginning to close. The flow of digital information – through mobile phones, text messaging, and the Internet – is now reaching the world’s masses, even in the poorest countries, bringing with it a revolution in economics, politics, and society. In my opinion, the technological innovation that has had the greatest impact on our lives in this country today would be the mobile telecommunication technology. For the last ten to fifteen years, mobile phones have changed our lives in such a way that no other technological change has before. Earlier, people used to book telephone calls in advance, had to go and use near the telephone booths, or sit beside a physical telephone instrument kept in the drawing room of a house, and attend to, or make calls stuck to a place. Now, people simply carry a 200 gram device in their pockets and can travel the world, always connected to their loved ones and business partners, no matter in whatever remote part of the world they are. (However, in certain countries, mobile coverage…
- 519 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
* Works by Amanda Knowles. `Pros and cons of texting. Get the World`. June 4th 2012, http://thecommunityword.com/online/blog/2009/03/14/pros-and-cons-of-texting/v…
- 967 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays