Language in Instant Messaging (WhatsApp)

Language in Instant Messaging

Language is used differently in instant messaging depending upon who the recipient of the message is to be. It is dependent, not only on the number of recipients, but also what relation they have to the sender. We would therefore, naturally assume that if the messages are between friends for example that the language used would be of a much lower register than between work colleagues. We have collected some screenshots from a person’s phone to different recipients. Screenshot 1 is to a ‘group chat’ comprised of the sender’s friends whereas screenshot 2 is to the sender’s father.    

Comparison Points

• The language used in screenshot 1 contains lots of short sentences; usually someone making a point followed by another person’s reaction. This pairing effect called ‘adjacency pairs’ can be observed throughout the chat where multiple utterances are often linked. 
• The style in screenshot two is quite the opposite; large, full sentences with less use of abbreviation, no use of emojis and proper use of punctuation. The use of more saturated sentences (in this case used to describe something) allows the sender to convey their point in greater detail.
• The language is also of a much lower register in screenshot 1. This can be seen from the use of ‘taboo’ language, swearing, the use of the symbol ‘@‘ instead of the word ‘at’ as well as the use of emojis. 
• There is the occasional use of emojis in the second chat however they are only used to convey an emotion that would not otherwise be possible
• The second chat uses a more traditional exclamation mark to create emphasis on the senders point whereas if this was the first chat, an emoji might have been used
• Another noticeable difference between the two is the frequency at which each utterance is posted. This is arguably because of the number of people in the chat, however it could also be because each person does not want to feel left out of the conversation. As a result, there are many examples of elision throughout the group chat. There is no such problem in screenshot 2 as there is a very relaxed nature to the chat.
• There are many examples of elision within screenshot 1. This is used to convey a point quicker as, in this case, some feel a pressure to reply quickly.

The language features, use of symbols etc used in the previous two screenshots can be observed throughout the chat (see other examples of screenshots below). Therefore, a logical conclusion to draw would be that there are specific language conventions used when speaking to specific people of groups of people.

   

Other examples:

Constraints and Affordances

Screenshot one is discussing a TV programme (however the programme does not interest the sender and so he is not active in the conversation). This could be considered a constraint of the platform as entire conversations can be carried out between the recipients that do not concern or interest the sender. However this particular platform enables you to send multiple videos, images, emojis, voice recordings, as well as text. As a result, WhatsApp can be regarded as a ‘multi-modal’ platform. This means that there are many different ways in which people can express their views, opinions, points etc. Such affordances can be used to convey a particular emotion (especially with the plethora of emojis available) or tone that would not otherwise be possible if just using text.

Screenshot 2 is talking about an image which had been sent to the recipient. The fact that you are able to send images to people on the platform and then discuss said image (as oppose to having to verbally describe what you can see) is also a major benefit of the platform. Another affordance of the platform is that it can be used across multiple devices (unlike other similar platforms such as iMessage). There are constraints that come with this however such as the fact that some emojis can’t be viewed on particular devices (see other examples below).

One interesting factor that only plays a part in this type of instant messaging platform, is that you are able to see when people are typing. This simple feature can have a quite influencing effect upon the person or people replying. For example, in a group chat scenario, some people naturally feel a pressure to respond quickly. This is because it would be natural to assume that the lack of response might be interpreted as being rude (the equivalent of ignoring someone in a real dialogue) and a quick reply is the only way to avoid this. This hypothesis would be supported if observing Erving Goffman’s ‘Face Theory’. It suggests that people have both positive face needs (feeling valued and appreciated) and negative face needs (feeling independent and not being imposed on). Any remark that may threaten a persons face (such as derogatory marks, exclusion from groups, questioning peoples opinions etc) can be classed as a ‘face threatening act’. Therefore, people try to respond quickly to avoid its absence as being interpreted as a face threatening act.