The Linguistic and Situational Features of WhatsApp Messages Among High School and University Canadian Students

Science of Technology

The point of texting is to be brief and fast and executable anywhere, even in un-related contexts. In recent times, perhaps nothing has propelled the direction of our “modern” language and communication more than cellphones. For instance, “WhatsApp affords its users the ability to send synchronously, in near real time, text messages, photos, videos, mapped geographic locations, voice messages and the contact details of others” (McKiernan, 2016, p. 32). Technology has revolutionized century-old processes of storing and sharing written and orally transmitted messages and meanings. Iconic examples are the almost obsolete letter-writing, the digitalization of document production, verification and filing. Telephone conversations are almost unrecognizable even among contemporary generations, whereby the elderly required static, hard-wired phone devices and synchronous communication, and the younger are exposed from birth to asynchronous face-talk, call back, multimodal messages encompassing text, pictures, stickers and more.

The advent of portable technology, from cellphones to ipads, has led to requiring only a WiFi connection for performing different life functions: from banking to shopping, family interaction and workload management. Due to the compact nature of the cellphone, its use has led to the development of a very abbreviated language variety referred to as “textese” (Drouin, 2011), with its unique abbreviated lexico-grammatical forms, emoticons and stylistic features. As Skierkowski and Wood (2012) observed, “[t]he use of text messaging by adolescents is a widely accepted phenomenon that has grown rapidly in the last few years in response to the advent of new and more affordable mobile phone technologies” (p. 744). While the reasons—legitimate or not—for text brevity are many, including physical, the usual purpose of “texting language” is to save time and to spare typing—to be quick, simple, brief, concise, to the point. The result may comprise both grammatical and agrammatical abbreviated words, sentences and texts in either standardized languages, pidgins and slang due to individual license to communicate through or using abbreviations, cellphone terms, emoticons, symbols and grammar. Such fundamental characteristics include the frequent use of emoticons, abbreviations, initializations, personal pronouns, consonant cluster simplification, acronyms, misspellings, vowel deletion and unconventional punctuation (Ling & Baron, 2007). Along the same line, Turner (2010) identified a taxonomy of some unique linguistic features of text messages such as unusual punctuation, vowel and consonant lengthening through adding extra vowels and consonants of the same quality, typing words the way they sound and deleting apostrophes.

Sánchez-Moyaa and Cruz-Moyab (2015) studied and contrasted the linguistic features of WhatsApp messages of two small groups of 15 with a “generation” gap of 10 years between the two groups. The first group consisted of 15 Spanish high school teenagers between 13 and 18 years old whereas the second group consisted of 15 Spanish adults aged between 28 and 33, who completed their high school and joined the job market. Each participant in both groups submitted one WhatsApp conversation he/she had with a peer, “making a corpus of 30 conversations” (p. 302).

The findings are that the overuse of textese is not the result of the inability to use the standard forms of the language, teenagers’ use of textese is higher than adults’ in terms of density, and teenagers are more aware than adults of the communicative situation that allows their use of textese.

The question arises as to whether one conversation to one close person is representative of their usual “variety” or “communicative practices.” It cannot be given the small sample size. In order for the study to be statistically valid, relevant and significant, there should have been a sample of 100 at least. The other question is whether 10 years are sufficient and relevant enough for the comparison between the two groups in this study. What constitutes a “generation”? Is 10 years out of high school sufficient to be considered a “generational gap”? Many people think of a parent/child age difference when they think of a generation—like 20 to 30 years.

I suppose the two different groups in this study are both educated to the same basic high school level, but the second group may have had further education, more work and life experience. The study suggests that adults are not so aware of texting confines. Maybe they are simply less shy, more confident, and secure in the judgments they make as to how they can communicate with whom. Many high school graduates grew up with technology, are used to using computers, and will get jobs that require they keep up with technological advances. The study has chosen a group of students in a certain grade or level within one school in a certain type of area or class. The other group was a group within one company. It is hard to gage how representative of their generation each group is.

In addition, were the classmate/friend relationships chosen equivalent in intimacy to those of colleagues at work? It is hard to differentiate adults and teenagers based on language given that linguistic capabilities can depend on people’s gift in language and their variety, or use of language can be influenced by various factors besides age, such as social class and home/school/neighborhood environment, desire to achieve high educational standards, drive, general aptitude/intelligence and language “fussiness.” Some old-fashioned parents still exist who correct their children’s speech and grammar when they make mistakes or, conversely, encourage their children to speak as grammatically correct in “proper English” as possible. This relates back to home influence and environment.

Salem (2013) draws attention to the overuse of text messaging shortcuts in students’ writing in the classroom and in English writing assignments in two levels of students in Kuwait, intermediate level aged between 11 to 15, and secondary aged between 16 and 18. He clearly seems to frown upon using “the same language” used in instant and text messaging with their close friends as is used in formal educational settings where Standard English usage has always been the goal and what was expected.

Many examples reported in Salem (2013) have been said or written in an abbreviated way before the onset of computers and cellphones. Regarding the examples of accent stylization (Thelwall, 2009) as reported in Salem (2013), “gonna” (and also “gonnu”) have existed and been commonly used contractually in speech long before computers and cellphones came into use. The word “gonna” (“gonnu”) can be incorporated into “country bumpkin” imitations, which are meant to be humorous. But, if “gonna” is said normally in ordinary speech, it is usually not meant to be humorous. Examples of country bumpkin talk meant to be humorous are “I’m goin down yonder ‘n gonna catch me a fish’.” Sometimes, if people want to sound like country bumpkin for a joke, they will purposely emphasize those contractions by drawing out/elongating the end vowel, as in “I’m gonna fetch me some moonshine,” imitating American country accents and speech (accent, intonations, vocabulary, elongating vowels, etc.). Normal talk: I’m gonna go to the store now. Do you wanna come? (“wanna” replaces “want to”). This is normal lazy speech that existed long before computers and cells. Example “sec” has been said and used in normal English speech/conversations for a long time—way before the use of computers and cellphones (thus IM and texting and emailing). It is an example of normal speech as it has existed for a long time: “Just one sec. I’m almost done.” Or, “One sec. I’m on the phone.” Or, “I’ll be with you in a sec.” Or, “I’ll be with you in one sec.” Likewise, “asap” existed long before computers and cells too, and “luv” for “love” has been around for a long time too; it preceded computers and cells. The same with “ya” for “you,” as in “See ya tomorrow!” “Homework” has also been written abbreviated as “hmwrk” before the onset of computers and cells. This author has not made this distinction. “Because” is a bit different. It would be common to hear something like this: A child protesting to his mother: “Oh mom. Why do I have to go to bed now?” And, the mother would say” “Cause (instead of because) I said so.” However, there were other abbreviations standing in for “because” way before the use of computers and cellphones, such as “cuz.” It does seem that a wider variety of abbreviations have sprung into use that stand for/replace “because,” such as “cos” or “coz.”

Plester et al. (2008), and Thurlow and Brown (2003), list examples such as days and months, but they have been abbreviated for ages long before the onset of computers and cellphones. Even in my school notebooks in primary school and up, we always had to write the date down and we would write Mon., Apr. 4, 1965 or Sept. 6, 1967. This is also the case with Crystal’s (2008) examples; just as days and months were abbreviated long before computers came into existence, so was the word “homework,” like “hmwk” or “hmwrk” only written instead. Regarding “will” and “have,” or “wil” and “hav,” the redundancy or needless letter at the end of these two words in terms of “proper” English pronunciation, if English language pronunciation rules are examined, the way these two words are written in textese are actually more close, more accurate, to the way these words are pronounced in English. English speakers do not say “wil-el” or “wil-ul” or “hav-e,” like “have-uh” or “eux” as in French, or “have” as in “cave.” This could be a sign of English-language evolution. It makes perfect sense when the spelling is rid of vowels or consonants, which are needless or “silent,” or may confuse learners, as seen in words like “should.”

Salem (2013) clearly states that instant and text messaging have an adverse, rather damaging, effect on English in terms of vocabulary, spelling, and grammar. The author continues to note how Blackberry messaging and iphone messaging “have detrimental effects on English language use” (p. 67). Mphahlel and Mashamaite (2005) state that SMS language affects English language proficiency levels, referring to “cellphone language” which “affects two aspects of language proficiency—the skills of expressing oneself eloquently through writing and using words in context in an appropriate way. It should be noted here that, it was never the purpose to use cellphones to express oneself eloquently. The cellphone is a tool for mostly casual communication between people who know each other or have some kind of acquaintance or group “membership” which requires some degree of acquaintance amongst its members and, at times, a need to communicate with different members. Goldstuck (2006) claims that SMS has altered language with the passage of time and that text messaging has led to and is still contributing to “the development of a new, dynamic English slang.” Thurlow (2003) classifies types of text messages into “non-standard typographic or orthographic forms.” Staples et al. (2018) compare the register features of texts of standardized exams (TOEFL iBT tasks) written by second language writers to other texts written by the same writers required for their academic profession, such as lab reports and argumentative essays. Sutherland (2002) describes the “grunt generation” and the products of their texting or SMS as bleak, bald, sad shorthand. Blair (2004) discusses the overdependence on technology, which has produced a young generation, deficient in communication skills. Thurlow (2006) refers to the “dumping down” of language and the lowering of standards. Another proponent of this camp is Rankin (2010) who claims that the use of the shortcuts has an adverse impact on developmental students’ spelling and grammar skills.

The current study changes course to focus on the positive aspects that the new technology of WhatsApping greatly impacts and facilitates English language use, highlighting the effectiveness, convenience, accessibility, wide-spread use, the savings in time and money, the ease, and the speed that this communication tool afford. It explores the linguistic and situational features that could define WhatsApp messaging as a distinct language variety. The result is a creative language variant, special in the way it is spelled, the way it is pronounced, the way it looks, the way it sounds, and the way it is used.

To achieve the purpose of the study, selected messages in English taken from mostly high school and university students in Vancouver, Canada, were analyzed in the genre analysis model of Biber and Conrad (2009). This model deals with genre, register, situational features and functions of electronic texts used for communication. Such features will be applied to describe and analyze WhatsApp messaging for its language forms, purposes and the causes behind its linguistic forms. Following and elaborating on Biber and Conrad (2009), and Turner (2010), it will be claimed that texters creatively manipulate forms associated with speech for quick and easy communication dictated by constricted screen space. The study adds to our knowledge that texting provides us with a different way of looking at language and thinking about language use and the various functions of such a variety—that is, how this variety is used to create different meanings in different contexts.

Biber & Conrad, 2009

As indicated, the study adopts Biber and Conrad’s (2009) model of genre, register and style analysis to achieve a representative analysis of the situational features, linguistic features and the communicative purposes of WhatsApp messages. Their analysis of texting is reviewed in more detail below. A list of features serving as the criteria for the data analysis in the present study will be provided in the methodology section.

Communicative Purpose of Texting

Biber and Conrad (2009, pp. 202–204) state that there are five general purposes for texting, as follows:

Biber and Conrad conclude this section emphasizing how texting is “highly focused on interpersonal relationships” (p. 204) which is evidenced in the “high interactiveness” of texting and “level of shared knowledge . . . time . . . and sometimes place, and . . . [most commonly] . . . purposes” (p. 204). On the other hand, Biber and Conrad state that communication can also be “distanced and somewhat impersonal”(p. 204) since texters find it difficult to express or understand “emotional content” given that they do not hear “how something was said,” which further leads to misunderstanding. Also, the short nature of text messages tends to result in just the gist being conveyed. Survey respondents found texting was “quick and efficient” when they did not have time or were not in a suitable place to text or was “faster and easier than phoning” when one does not feel like engaging in a long conversation. Some texters found texting convenient for delivering negative news (“such as being late”).

To further study linguistic characteristics of text messages, Biber and Conrad completed a quantitative analysis comparing word content per message (also length of message) between text messages, e-mails, and e-forum postings. In the process of completing this comparison, they equated abbreviations to the written word. That is, “R U,” for example, was viewed as a verb and pronoun (“are you”), not simply just two letters of the alphabet. It wasn’t clear to me whether the volume of messages studied was the same in each category. However, this is what they reported. In terms of word count per message, text messaging produced an average of 10.2 words per message, e-mails about 208 words per message, and e-forum postings about 46 words per message. This once again highlighted/reaffirmed that text messaging was “a quick, short form of communication” and attributed this to “inconvenient typing and reading, or the cost, or both.”

Objectives and Research Questions

Guided by Biber and Conrad’s (2009) model of analysis and building on Turner’s (2010) texting feature taxonomy, this study aims to explore the linguistic features of WhatsApp text messages and attempts to interpret their intent, content and context of use. To achieve the research objectives, the author enlisted the help of a group of volunteer students to provide 100 different samples of texts in English already sent and/or received—real conversations that have been texted (section 2).

Significance of the Study

The significance of studying WhatsApp language is that such a study gives us insight into language use, how language evolves due to technological advancements, and how it is also constrained by the limitations of the technology it is centered around and by its texters whose language use may be based on their age, mental and/or physical health/ability and level of education. On the other hand, texting also provides us with a window into how this language variety greatly deviates from more traditional, standard written English and the creativity it has sparked in terms of language use.

Texting facilitates not only our communication but our productivity (requesting, offering, demanding, promising, apologizing, responding, etc.) in the performance of our daily duties and tasks. And, most importantly, in the performing of these various functions and creating meaning in different contexts, texters are actively, often enthusiastically, and sometimes almost endlessly, engaged in language expression and learning.

Research Design

Guided by relativist ontological stance and interpretivist epistemology, this research adopts a qualitative interpretive research design (Creswell, 2007) to investigate a complex, contextualized phenomenon.

Though localized and discrete, the explanation of grammatical changes applied to texting in English aims to inform by virtue of its detailed analysis and rich description of participants, of their communicative aims, background and context and of the linguistic phenomena thus gleaned.

Corpus of the Study, Data Collection Tools and Procedures

To achieve the research objectives, at the first stage of data collection, the researcher relied on a group of high school and university level volunteer students in Vancouver, Canada, whose age ranges between 16 and 18, to provide 100 different samples of English texted exchanges and conversations extracted from individual chat sessions. The corpus thus consisted of a broad range of texts, senders, purposes and contexts, for example home, school, work, volunteer work, sports/recreational activities or involvement, religious worship/mosque related, hobbies, purchasing items, delivery/orders, mail and banking. Since the study is qualitative in nature, the participants were purposively selected based on certain criteria, viz., tech savviness, English native speakerness and their age bracket.

The texts were forwarded to the author via email and WhatsApp. The researcher ensured that texts were anonymized and deprived of sensitive data. For example, while contents remained unchanged, personal information was substituted with fictitious names/letters. Participants were asked to sign their agreement with the respected terms of data protection and with the sharing of the data for the purposes of the dissemination of research findings.

The second stage was identifying main themes in the corpus of texts thus collected and processed, involving different types of relationships—professional (work/volunteer work: co-workers, boss/supervisor and employee), personal (family: parents, siblings, friends, dates, male friend/female friend, husband/wife, between other family members like cousins, aunts and uncles, or grandparents, etc.), between classmates, coach/student on athletic team or between team members, of a religious capacity (volunteer work at a mosque), etc. The texts are divided into categories or subcategories according to their purposes and different settings, and an explanation is given for the categories with examples. This second stage consisted in selecting text categories that best ensured rich content in terms of quantity of exchanges, communicative functions and observable text variations.

All conclusions on situational context of messages were confirmed by means of participant validation (Guba & Lincon, 1989), a technique accepted in inductive research as a means to verify data analysis. That is the method involves the participants the data were collected from. The author submitted the interpretation of the situational features of the messages to them to check for conformity with their experiences.

Biber and Conrad’s (2009) Model

The collected data will be analyzed qualitatively using Biber and Conrad’s model to study the research questions. Having reviewed Biber and Conrad’s analysis of texting in detail in section (1.2), here the main points serving as general guidelines for the analysis will be presented.

Misspelled Words

Often a lot of words are deliberately misspelled and letters are dropped as can be seen in some of the examples given below. Often g’s are left off in a verb’s present participial “-ing” form, as in

travelin, enjoyin, talkin, walkin, workin, bein, laffin (for laughing)

“u r rite. reel time . . . .”

“tonit.”

They are spelled like a young texter who does not care too much about correct English grammar or spelling. Texters often spell words differently since different users make different choices and even different choices at different times, as in these cases:

tonit, tonite, 2nit, 2nite

Dliciois

The use of numbers like 2 for “to” and 4 for “for” will be discussed under a separate heading in (section 10).

Unconventional Capitalization

There are lots of creative manipulation of language forms like:

OMG

B there

B square

I will c U 2moro.

Dliciois

Tagg (2009) defines creativity “as the manipulation of language form, in unexpected and yet contextually appropriate ways” (p. 159). Some people write You like U, capitalized when not at the beginning of a sentence, which would be unconventional—maybe just because it is easier to read, and it stands out more clearly. The unconventional capitalization U appears easier to read than u. When it begins a sentence, it makes sense because you would normally be written You. It can stand for a capitalized You at the beginning of a sentence, or is easier to read.

Others may associate the capitalization of you with capitalized names: Jane, John, You and may think it is more respectful or proper. Personally, I think it just looks and “reads” better, that is, is easier to read because it stands out more clearly. Here are some more illustrative closures attested in the data:

I will c u 2moro.

I will c U 2moro.

I will C U 2moro

I will see u 2moro.

I will see U 2moro.

Sometimes, texters might make sure to write something in capitals because mentally they are thinking that is more formal and denotes more respect. Sometimes, a friend’s name would be written like Chris and sometimes chris if the texter is being more lazy and informal but no texter typed the bosses’ name or the president of the company’s name at work or a teacher’s in uncapitalized letters. In a culinary school context for example, one texter always typed Chef Jones or Brown or Smith, never chef jones. It is observed that a texter would not misspell a friend’s name by abbreviating it for the sake of convenience or speed (and not a teacher’s or a principal’s or a boss’s name unless they were on very close terms).

A couple of texters wrote T for their friend Tom. It appears that one would feel comfortable in just typing T for Tom for “efficiency and ease” because it is known that it is not intended to insult or to be disrespecting the addressee since the participants have known each other for a long time.

Young folk have all kinds of nicknames and interesting spellings. One texter whose son went by RidR after his last name Reiter. In North American English, the letter “t” is pronounced like a “d” when it is in the middle of two vowels provided the first vowel is stressed, a phonological rule known as flapping. Young texters spelled their friend’s names in all kinds of ways—without capitalizing it at the beginning apparently without meaning to be disrespectful—without attaching any importance to capitalization and no sense of disrespect meant like the following messages:

hey ridR what’s for hmwk? and

wanna go 2 a movie 2nit Ridr?

Another interesting example is the following expression of emphasis:

I will be RIGHT back

If a clerk just said to a customer very matter of factly “I’ll be back,” the customer would feel kind of insulted, and would be thinking “yeah? like when buddy?”

At some time, for sure, the customer knows that much, but how about attaching some amount of importance or urgency to the task? The words a person uses and the tone of its deliverance and the emphasis put on a word or certain words or lack of all communicates something and all mean something. If the clerk, or the teller, or cashier says “I’ll be right back” with some emphasis on “right,” then the customers know they are getting some respect and that the clerk has an awareness of the importance of completing this task and a sense of urgency to get it done, done well or accurately or to my satisfaction, and done efficiently. All this would make the customer feel more valued.

Frequent Use of 1st and 2nd Pronouns

In the following context, people in a choir are getting in touch with people they are close to and need information from:

“Hey are you going to practice tonight?”

“Can you pick me up?”

“When are we supposed to be there?”

“Do y know What time the game start?”

Here people on a team are getting in touch with members for information:

r u there

c u on fri,

Where r u?

r u busy?

I will get that 4 y at the store

The use of 4y “for you” embedded in the message:

I will get that 4y at the store

is unconventional again, non-standard English. It serves the purpose of being fast, easy, precise, and simple—needed for this form of communication, a conclusion confirmed by means of participant validation described in the methodology section. The abbreviation y or U for you is easy, fast, simple, precise, convenient all for the ease of communication.

I suppose it would have to involve two people who are “having a conversation” about a certain topic, purchasing batteries, that is understood by both parties. Since one person is talking to the other and there is no other person involved in the “conversation” or communication, 4 y is understood and also because the two probably have come to know each other’s abbreviations. It is more correct to say: when one party texts “4y,” it would be understood who the “you” is because the party saying it is engaged with only one other person in that “conversation” or communication and obviously there is a certain amount of intimacy involved—that is, the parties know each other and are also probably familiar with each other’s common/usual abbreviations. In this case, when one person texted:

I will pick that up 4y at the store,

one would not even have to be familiar with these abbreviations because you can get the gist just through the context and what would normally be said in this context.

It is not appropriate, for example, for a person to use a third person pronoun in a WhatsApp message or a telephone conversation if the topic is not about someone else.

Non-existence of Salutations and Formal Genre Markers

There is a lack of formal titles and salutations such as “Dear so and so” in the gathered WhatsApp messages, a phenomenon observed in Arabic messages as well (Al Anqoudi, 2019). Instead, the opening of the message starts with a person’s name or with an informal greeting and concludes with “love” or “kisses” or “hugs.” This appears to be so because texting is mostly an informal means of communicating with friends and family, or between boyfriend and girlfriend, or between people who belong to a certain group, such as classmates, co-workers, choir/church members, teammates, dance partners, etc.

Some texts begin with a hi or a hello salutation as in this context where ex-operators at TELUS who get together every month or two:

Hi Jan. or

Hello Ladies or

Greetings everyone (a bridge group).

The next meeting is scheduled for Nov 29th. Let me know if you can attend that day. We could also make it for Dec 4th or Dec 10th if Nov 29th doesn’t work.

Love, Jane

Or the following message from a classmate:

Hi Chris. I forgot to copy down the hmwrk. Can you tell me what it is? THX!!! See U 2moro in class. xoxo Nancy

Some messages end with

Love or love & hugs.

Such endings were first used in letter writing as closings at the end of a letter. Obviously, these are informal closings often used by people who know each other and share some kind of close bond—such as between friends or relatives. But not all friends or relatives are addressed this way. Some texters did not use terms of endearment or any expression suggesting there are some fond feelings or feelings of an intimate nature that exist between the two. It also doesn’t mean that if you’re fond of someone that you are necessarily going to end your letter with “Love” or “Love & hugs.” It may be more common for girls to end a letter that way than boys, but this needs further confirmation. It might depend on the type of person they are. Some people may not be very classy or nice or sensitive and may not express much emotion ever. It might depend on how they’re feeling, what kind of day they had, what mood they’re in, or how busy they are. So, some closings ended this way:

Bye Aunty Jo. Hope to see you at Christmas. Or,

Hope to see you soon. Or,

Bye Uncle Stan. I’ll be in Hamilton on the 12th.. I’ll call you when I get there, sometime between 10 & 11 in the morning, so we can arrange a time to meet.

Some just ended with

Bye for now.

The choice of language features and style in these messages is more like letter writing which appears to be based on age group or generational differences (Pérez-Sabater, 2015), class or position in society. Since letter writing could be informal and is a written mode of communication, it seemed a natural progression for informal writing to be transferred over to emails, another written mode which could be informal and, then, to text messages which are largely informal and, of course, written. Of course, letters could be formal, and so could emails, but texting is a tool of convenience used mostly for informal communication. Can the same inference be made about emails? Emails have become more like texts if shared between two people who are close. So it depends on the relationship between the sender and receiver. One has to use judgment on how personal or impersonal, how formal or casual, how slang or how “proper the language” can/should be.

The point is a lot of this type of communication—the modern and latest forms of communication and practices—are tied to technology. But, how we use language and our communication practices are tied in with personal abilities, characteristics, motivations, preferences, attitudes, and interests.

Unconventional End-of-Sentence Punctuation

Texting seems to have a form of punctuation of its own. Conventional punctuation is being reshaped or “repurposed” (Baron & Ling, p. 61) to suit the needs of texters and their interlocutors. The symbols such as smileys and roses indicate that a person finished a sentence or one topic or the message itself. If people are intimate, they use some symbols that are meaningful at least to one person and become learned by another through their intimate relationship or intimacy, if even just friends or close acquaintances. For example, some texters used a rose.

When such symbols are used, there would be a certain amount of intimacy/closeness and familiarity between the participants. It is not likely that one would use an informal signal or sign or piece of art or emoji or emoticon or whatever one considers those pieces to a prospective boss who is going to hire you or is considering hiring you or to someone you do not care to know or befriend or let in your circle (of friends or acquaintances). Anyone whom you would not welcome into your life, you tend not to want to share anything much personal.

A punctuation that developed and evolved in the medium of texting is the symbol (: . Yet another communication medium of texting, the smiling face or smile can be seen in one exchange. It does not make sense to ask a serious question “What about you?” and then put a smiling face. It is totally unnecessary. It seems to be a waste of time and effort at least from the perspective of an outsider, especially since the question is so short. One still does not really get asking a serious question like What about you? and then putting a smiley face. One can understand that or it would make sense to someone if the emoticon harmonized (?) (i.e., was in harmony with ?) echoed the sentiment or mood being expressed. But this emoticon is contrary—at least it seems to me—an outsider. As Otemuyiwa (2017, p. 399) observed, “more smileys and emojis [are] used by conversationalists, since phones even suggest them as you type your conversations.” It is presumed this must be a habit this texter has gotten into at least with her friend or hubby who may have inspired this happy face by warm feelings or who is happy to hear from her hubby. It is uncertain as it is personal and has an element of private communications with symbols/pieces that are individualized or their use is individualized or customized to their wishes/liking/whims at the moment. So, it might be customary or might be a whim. One would have to know that texter’s history really. But, just as an outsider, as said at the start, it does not really make sense, even looks kind of goofy for an observer.

Lengthening Words with Additional Consonants or Vowels

Doubling or multiplying letters means emphasis like:

Thank you SOOOOO MUCH

It indicates a lot of appreciation and gratefulness. Or,

BRRRRB

means that person is going to be really quick and is indicating to the addressee just that—that he/she (the texter) will be quick and maybe also that this texter attaches importance to the other person or the importance/need to be quick, to not keep the person waiting too long. The texter might just as well be saying:

I will be RIGHT back

a way of expressing emphasis and importance or urgency to complete a task efficiently or not keep a person waiting too long. It involves the speaker’s awareness of the need for urgency. It can also denote more respect.

Unconventional Use of Ellipses

Ellipsis is a characteristic feature of texting style which commonly omits strings of consonants, or vowels or articles to save valuable space. A lot of vowels and consonants are dropped in various positions in words, as an e before an x at the beginning of a word xpensiv or before a consonant at the end of a word ridr or after a consonant at the end of a word, as in hav for “have,” lik for “like,” spok for “spoke,” mak for “make,” gav for “gave.” gh’s are often omitted altogether, as in rite for “right” or lite for “light,” mite for “might”; the spelling is adjusted to obtain the same sound. Often texters leave off the end consonant of a word ending in a double consonant, as in wil for “will,” cel for “cell,” tel for “tell,” cal for “call.” It is also noted that sometimes, the first letter and last letter of a one-syllable word are the only letters texted, as in cl for “call.” Sometimes in a two-syllable word, the middle letters are dropped out in the second syllable, as in emL for “email.” ough’s are often omitted, as in bot for “bought,” tho for “though,” ruf for “rough,” tuf for “tough,” enuf for “enough.” The word “Above” is texted by some as abv, “others” as abuv, and still others as abov. Everywhere is texted as evrywher, so vowels are very prone to being dropped any and everywhere: at the beginning of a word (xl for excel), in the middle of a word (evry for every), or at the end of a word as in hav for “have.” wr’s become just r’s at the beginning of words, or the w before an r at the beginning of a word is dropped, as in rite for write, or rong for wrong.

Phonetic Spelling

Texters use one letter to represent one sound, syllable, or word based on phonetic sound. Representative examples are:

a for “A” (this is old, as in “A1”), b for “be”; c for “see”; d for “de” (as in “Dlux”), f for “gh” (as in enuf) or “ph” (as in graf), g for “gee”; o for “oh”; p for “pee”; q for “cu”; r for “are”; t for “tee” or “tea”; u for “you”; x for “ex”; y for “why.”

Texters typed just one letter if that letter is pronounced the same as a one-syllable word, so b for “be,” c for “see,” r for “are,” capital Y for “why,” or if that letter is the first sound in the first syllable of a word or is the last sound in the last syllable of a word, so bcz for “because,” dliver for “deliver,” qut for “cute,” nliten for “enlighten,” forbidn for “forbidden,” or ridr for “rider,” xl for “excel” and sayg or sayng for “saying.” This is a good way of saving time and more typing, leaving out some vowels and understand the message.

The examples show that texting imitates speech, that people or texters text the way they would speak or maybe text the way they would like to be perceived, like cool and hip and with it, to use some 60’s/70’s language, or maybe text the way people in a certain group do or the group they just joined and that they text in a grammatical style that imitates their speech. But, as shown, a lot of spelling evolved through texting has become more phonetic.

Abbreviations

There is a lot of creative manipulation of language forms by someone who knows more about WhatsApping and is more tech saavy like the following abbreviated words:

bfn (bye for now),

syl (see you later)

“r u goin on fri?”

r u or

c u on fri (C is for the one syllable word “see”)

One texter puts bfn because this texter chose to close texts that way all the time. The reason the texter gave is that it is fast, simple, and easy. “Rather than typing out something different all the time, I don’t even have to think about it . . . just do it automatically. . like a robot. I bet a monkey cud do it.,” one participant said.

Here are some other commonly-used abbreviations found in the samples:

yu/u mite c (you might see), enuf, nite, rite, lol, btw, ttfn, sol, fone (phone)

The use of abbreviations is also illustrated in examples of how the intention of meeting might be conveyed with a combination of the following word, sentence and text level grammatical modifications:

“Will I see you tonight?” becomes C U tonite? or C u 2nite? “Called” becomes cld. “Send me an email.” becomes emL me. “Are you okay?” becomes R U ok?.

The screen of an old phone such as Iphone 4 is quite small. Some of the phones have bigger screens and keyboards. A new phone would be easier to type on and read. Reading is also a factor. There is a lot of glare on the eyes. Texters do not want to be cramping their fingers and getting carpal tunnel syndrome and hurting their eyes so much. The faster one can relay MSGS—or TXT—the better.

Substitute Numbers for a Syllable

Texters also make up their own abbreviations or acronyms and sometimes substitute numbers for a syllable as in these examples:

2nite for “tonight” or b4 for “before”

Sometimes numbers replace one-syllable words or just one syllable in a word if the number sounds like a letter, so you get b4 for “before,” 2 see u for “to see you,” 2 for “to” as in 2nite for “tonight,” 4get for “forget,” or 4 for “for.”

The second example is interesting because one would think that person would type 2 c u or 2 C U or 2CU. If the texter uses the others in an abbreviated form—why not for “see” too? That just goes to show how individualized this form of communication is and how it is crafted to reflect the “voice of the speaker” (Turner, 2010, p. 43). And, also how one day or time a texter might choose to type a word differently than another time or day. A lot can depend on whim. Not only numbers but also letters can be combined while quoting Shakespeare as in:

2 B or not 2 B, that is the question.

Don’t know what Shakespeare would think.

The practice of using numbers for a syllable or word is naturally easy, fast, saves time and saves typing. This substituting makes sense: ease, simplicity, precise, fast, typing in constricted space, on the move or on the go communication in real time in a busy schedule, during class, during work, waiting for a bus or traveling to work in your car and on transit, often when you are not supposed to be doing it like in class, or at work and while driving when you are supposed to have your eyes on the road and your mind focused on driving.

Sound Substitution

Another strategy evolved through texting is sound substitution. For example, the sound z often takes the place of s at the end of a word, resulting in spellings like lotz or dependz, for example, instead of “lots” or “depends.” Of course it makes more sense (phonetically motivated) in the second example because the s is pronounced as a zed after a voiced stop at the end of a word. Likewise, the s in the quantifier “lots” converts to z in lotz in anticipation of the vocalic onset in the preposition “of” which the quantifier obligatorily selects—an example of a forced assimilation in voicing.

WhatsApping Language: A Communication Form Geared Toward More Individualistic Expression

The studies reviewed in section (1. 1) clearly point out degraded English in textese in various forms and ways, describe the “grunt generation” and their texting as bleak, bald, sad shorthand, claim that the overdependence on technology has produced a young generation, deficient in communication skills, and focus on the “dumping down” of language and the lowering of standards. Contrary to these studies, the current study highlights some positive aspects of WhatsApp messaging, as well as other types of individual messaging apps, and contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of this mode of communication, its linguistic and situational features.

Texters use “non-standard” language in creative ways to serve communication purposes and to reflect skilled command of language. Texters, through participant validation, justified the non-standard language use of “textism” or “netspeak” (Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008) on the basis of the limitations and complexity of typing texts on the various phones. So, abbreviations, clippings, accent stylizations, and abbreviated forms seem to be a natural development and course to take since they serve the communication purposes well and better suit the constraints of texting.

As already explained, the point of texting is to be brief and fast, given that the keypad on a cellphone is small and difficult to type on. Plus, the cell, being portable, is often used in transit or when a person is not really supposed to be using it, like when they are at work, in class, driving, or at an appointment or meeting, etc. Also, people pay for airtime and data, so being brief, concise, and quick is a premium.

The result is that many people use clipped sentences in a free flow of casual speech and slang. While common abbreviations are used and have become standard, there is a lot of individualistic variance in terms of style and language usage.

Some people text in standard English using full sentences with proper punctuation and grammar as if they were writing a formal letter. These examples were texted to the author by a colleague (X is used to remove personal identities):

Hi Dr X,

I received your email. Thank you

Do you have any idea about the date of presentation?

Hi, good morning.

Any updates regarding proposal or presentation date?

I canceled the travel this week. I want to travel next week so please let me know the date in order to fix traveling date.

Thus, people may sometimes use standard language in text messaging, “draw[ing] on their awareness of other language varieties and discourses to construe brevity, perform spoken informality, and indicate group membership and deviance” (Tagg, 2009, p. 6). Users draw on their familiarity of other genres and their awareness of other text types and discourse varieties, like OMG or bfn. Many texters, on the other hand, use a lot of the commonly known abbreviations and acronyms and omit parts of speech (nouns/subjects/articles) and drop letters.

Texters may make different choices at different times regarding what letters to leave in or omit, or they may choose a different spelling. One day they might spell “you” as u and another day as yu. One day they might spell out be in full and another day spell it as one letter, b. Sometimes cu (as pronounced in “cute”) is spelled as a capital letter Q or a small letter q. One day they write “small” as sm (as done on clothes tags) and another day as sml or smL. People often use symbols and emoticons of their choosing in different ways regularly or at random. Most people write your and you’re as if they are the same word; one texter spelled it like yer, another yur, another ur, yet another yor. Some make a distinction and text “you’re” as yur or ur and “your” as yor. Some people text “something” like smthg, yet another sthg, and another somthg. Whatever a person can think of can be texted. “Become” is texted as becom, or bcum, or bcom. “Although” is usually texted as altho. “Abbreviations” is usually texted as abbrevs. One person texts “because” like bcz, another bec, another cuz, another b/cz, demonstrating “creativity in maximizing meaning while minimizing effort” (Kent & Johnson, 2012, p. 52).

Also, some people know all the short cuts and are “with it”; other people lag behind in adapting to change and adopting technology. It does seem sometimes that there are two different “camps,” people who text in regular English and avid texters who do not mind butchering the English language. This is why texting can be such a rich source for creative and spontaneous language geared toward more individual expression.

Situational Characteristics and Purpose of Texting

A language variety has developed based on the physical constraints of its medium (the size of cellphone keyboards and screens), by the portability of this medium (can communicate almost anywhere), by the busy on-the-go lifestyle of the majority of its users (can communicate instantly, briefly, informally, and even in transit, that is, in real time like play by play sport reviews), and the active use of this medium by its users to fulfill personal, interpersonal, or business needs. While exploiting this medium (or while fulfilling these communication needs through texting), users draw on other language varieties and discourses (Turner, 2010) to achieve brevity, to “speak” informally, and sometimes to include/exclude group membership. This is so because the main focus is on the interactants (the sender and the receiver), that is conversational. It is also related to the fact that the communiques mostly involve just two people that know each other or are getting acquainted (unless it has to do with some group chat).

For all these reasons, texting involves a lot of informal, “improper” language that has evolved to its current state because it serves communication needs of busy people that call for ease of communication—simplicity, speed, and less typing due to the keyboard/screen space limitations.

It is true that people use all these abbreviations and shortcuts. However, they know that “gr8, “B4” and “cuL8r” (Plester et al., 2008) instead of using “great,” “before” and “See you later” are not normal spelling and are not a normal “words.” And, if all “generation grunt” can do is misspell, fail to say or write a proper sentence, and grunt to communicate, then why is it that they get jobs and communicate in English quite well as real estate agents or insurance agents, credit counselors, etc.? At some point, all these young ones attained greater skills in language and communication somehow—magically perhaps!—than what these authors are attributing to them (cf. section 1.1 and the studies cited therin). If people are of normal intelligence, finish high school, and possibly get some post-secondary education, and strive to learn in the working world, then they have the ability to learn and use advanced forms of communication and various methods as well. In that age group, their minds and abilities are forming and have yet to be fully realized.

Participants can easily switch back and forth between normal English and textese. It is not a problem. I would liken it to a person who learns a trade and uses the language of that trade, or a person who is bilingual or trilingual. They can switch back and forth between their native tongue and English. If kids grow up and go to school in Canada from a young age, then they will surely know “B4” is a short cut for the word “before.” Otherwise, all these kids would not be able to communicate in the jobs they get as insurance agents, or real estate agents, etc. Undoubtedly, normal, educated, adult English speakers must know that “Bye for now” is not actually spelled “BFN,” or “See you later” is not actually spelled “syl.” The author just made that last one up, unaware if that even exists, but that is an example of how this form of communication can be individualized and abbreviated to suit the physical constraints that go hand in hand with this form or medium, and often time constraints as well—being brief, concise and fast.

So much depends on a person’s drive or job or desire to use and keep up with the latest tech - to be tech saavy. If a person’s survival or standard of living or social connections is largely age driven, or is intelligent and a quick learner and like to learn throughout life, he/she will be more motivated to learn and use current and upcoming technology. Such an individual is more likely to weather the changes in technology.

Technology will always change. Many expressions will come and go. Some may stick - “cool” is one word that has stuck around and is still common enough. Communicative practices have changed so much and so quickly because of cell phones and online practices. But, how much of what is used now will stick and for how long? Again, that will probably depend on technological change.

Consider the “hip” speech of the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. Not many people seem to speak it now. How many people these days, regardless of when they grew up, say “hunky dory,” “peachy keen,” “grody to the max,” “gag me with a spoon,” “Can you dig it?,” “Oh, that’s really rad,” “Groovy man,” “That’s psychedelic,” “Get jiggy with it,” etc. A lot of the “in” speech of the “good ol” days’ seems to fall by the wayside at some time and the “usual” variety generally used by “the environment” within a particular society seems to be adopted for general/common use. That is, someone in a First Nations community in a rural area of Saskatchewan probably speaks in a general way, and city people in Toronto may have a different standard, and people in St John’s, Newfoundland, probably speak somewhat differently as well.