This study examines the factors influencing language and script choice in instant messaging (IM), a form of real-time computer-mediated communication, in a multilingual setting. Grounded in the New Literacy Studies, the study understands IM as a social practice involving texts, encompassing a range of literacy practices, within which a subset called “text-making practices” is highlighted in this article. Drawing on results from an analysis of chat texts, interviews, and logbooks collected from 19 young people, the author suggests that the text-making practices related to language and writing system choice are guided by the perceived affordances of the IM technology and the available linguistic resources. Seven ecological factors influencing these perceptions have been identified: perceived expressiveness of the language, perceived functions of IM , user familiarity with the language, user identification with the language, technical constraints of inputting methods, speed , and perceived practicality of the writing system. The author argues that these factors often co-occur in real use.
America Online. (2005). AOL's third annual instant messenger trends survey. Available at http://www.aim.com/survey/
2.
Baron, N. (2005a). Instant messaging and the future of language . Communication and the ACM, 48(7), 29-31.
3.
Baron, N. (2005b). Instant messaging by American college students: A case study in computer-mediated communication. Available at http://www.american.edu/tesol/Baron-AAAS-IM%20by%20American%20College%20Students.pdf
4.
Baron, N. (in press). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated conversation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
5.
Barton, D. (1995). Some problems with an evolutionary view of written language. In S. Puppel (Ed.), The biology of language (pp. 19-32). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
6.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
7.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge.
8.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies (pp. 7-15). London: Routledge.
9.
Bauer, R.S. (1988). Written Cantonese of Hong Kong. Cahiers deLinguistique Asie Orientale, 17(2), 245-293.
10.
Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (2004). Introduction. In C . Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 1-10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Bearne, E., & Kress, G. (2001). Editorial. Reading, Literacy, and Language, 35(3), 89-93.
12.
Bolton, K. (2002). The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English. In K. Bolton (Ed.), Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp. 29-55). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
13.
Briggs, C., & Bauman, R. (1999). “The foundation of all future researches ”: Franz Boas, George Hunt, Native American texts, and the construction of modernity. American Quarterly, 51(3), 479-523.
14.
Bryant, J.A., A. Sanders-Jackson, and A.M.K. Smallwood . (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2). Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/bryant.html
15.
Carrington, V. (2005). The uncanny, digital texts and literacy. Language and Education, 19(6), 467-482.
16.
Craig, D. (2003). Instant messaging: The language of youth literacy . Available at http://www.stanford.edu/group/pwr/publications/Boothe_0203/PWR%20Boothe-Craig.pdf
17.
Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007). Looking from inside out: Academic blogging as new literacy. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacy studies sampler (pp. 167-198). New York: Peter Lang.
18.
Flanagin, A.J. (2005). IM online: Instant messaging use among college students. Communication Research Reports, 22(3), 175-187.
19.
Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London: Routledge.
20.
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Brandsford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1979)
22.
Grinter R.E., & Palen, L. (2002). Instant messaging in teen life. CHI Letters, 4(3), 21-30.
23.
Hamilton, M. (2000) Expanding the new literacy studies: Using photographs to explore literacy as social practice. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies : Reading and writing in context (pp. 16-34). London : Routledge.
24.
Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, D.J., & Kamm, C. (2002). The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '02) (pp. 11-22). New Orleans, LA: ACM Press.
25.
Ivanič, R., & Satchwell, C. (2006, October). Reading and writing the self as a college student: Fluidity and ambivalence across contexts. Paper presented at the meeting of the Lancaster Literacy Research Discussion Group.
26.
Jacobs, G.E. (2004). Complicating contexts: Issues of methodology in researching the language and literacies of instant messaging. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 394-406.
27.
Jacobs, G.E. (2006). Fast times and digital literacy: Participation roles and portfolio construction within instant messaging. Journal ofLiteracy Research, 38(2), 171-196.
28.
James, G. (2001). Cantonese particles in Hong Kong students' English emails. English Today, 17, 9-16.
29.
Kenner, C., & Kress, G. (2003). The multisemiotic resources of biliterate children . Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(2), 179-202.
30.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
31.
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22, 5-22.
32.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning. London: Continuum.
33.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.
34.
Kwan-Terry, A., & Luke, K.K. (1997). Tradition, trial, and error: Standard and vernacular literacy in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. In A. Tabouret-Keller, R. B. Le Page, P. Gardner-Chloros, & G. Varro (Eds.), Vernacular literacy: A re-evaluation (pp. 271-315). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
35.
Lea, M. ( 2004). New literacy studies, ICTs and learning in higher education . In I. Snyder & C. Beavis (Eds.), Doing literacy online: Teaching, learning and playing in an electronic world (pp. 3-24). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
36.
Lee, C.K.M. (2002). Literacy practices of computer-mediated communication in Hong Kong. Reading Matrix, 2(2). Available at http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/lee/article.pdf
37.
Lee, M. ( 2000). Code-switching in media texts: Its implications on society and culture in post-colonial Hong Kong. In C. David, S. Li, A. Lin, & W. K. Tsang (Eds.), Language and education in post-colonial Hong Kong (pp. 95-127). Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
38.
Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities . Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470-501.
39.
Li, D.C.S. (2000) Cantonese-English code-switching research in Hong Kong: A Y2K review. World Englishes, 19(3), 305-322.
40.
Li, D.C.S. (2002). Cantonese-English code-switching research in Hong Kong: A survey of recent research. In K. Bolton (Ed.), Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp. 79-99). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
41.
Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing. London: Routledge.
42.
Nardi, B.A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '00) (pp. 79-88). New Orleans, LA: ACM Press.
43.
Nastri, J., Peña, J., & Hancock, J.T. (2006). The construction of away messages: A speech act analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1025-1045.
44.
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
45.
Norman, D. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
46.
Norman, D. (1999, May/June). Affordance, conventions and design. Interactions, pp. 39-42.
47.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2006) Introduction. In K . Pahl & J. Rowsell (Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies (pp. 1-15). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
48.
Pccw. (2005). Netvigator teams up with ICQ to launch NETVIGATOR ICQ 5. Available at http://202.66.146.82/listco/hk/pccw/newsflash/n050827.pdf
49.
Pew Internet. (2004). How Americans use instant messaging. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org
50.
Prior, P. (2005). Moving multimodality beyond the binaries: A response to Gunther Kress' “Gains and losses.”Computers and Composition, 22(1), 23-30.
51.
Selfe, C., & Hawisher, G. (2004). Literate lives in the information age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Snow, D. (2004). Cantonese as written language: The growth of a written Chinese vernacular. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
53.
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
54.
Street, B.V. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1-21). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Williams, G. (1998) Children entering literate worlds: Perspectives from the study of textual practices. In F. Christie & R. Mission (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 18-46). London: Routledge.
