Embedded multimodality: sounds and actions in text-messages?

Widespread belief, rooted mainly in folk linguistics, that texting as a form of communication offers very limited possibilities, is attributed to its text-only character (cf. Spilioti 2006).  Instead of being seen as a rich communicative tool, texting is often seen purely as a linguistic experiment.

In this lecture, I address the underlying assumption that texting is a restricted form of communication and show that, even though mono-modal (i.e., text-only) on the surface, texting demonstrates largely multimodal possibilities, including ways of representing sensory information, e.g., sounds or images, in writing. Rather than being purely mono-modal, it represents “embedded multimodality”, defined as the use of linguistic tools in order to perform multimodal communication within a technologically mono-modal medium.

I concentrate on two main domains within which multimodal communication can be observed in texts: representing sounds and actions in writing. I also point to the emerging grammar of embedded multimodality and the rules that texters follow in making their communication by text-messages multimodal. Finally, I suggest some of the routes along which multimodal elements could have found its way into texting, including transfer between different forms of communication (e.g., similarities with comic strips and animations in instant messaging).

To cite this book review:

Agnieszka Knaś (2010). Carmen Frehner, Email – SMS – MMS: The linguistic creativity of asynchronous discourse in the new media age. Bern: Peter Lang, 2008. Pp. 294. Pb $78.95.. Language in Society, 39, pp 713-714 doi:10.1017/S0047404510000813

Texting – literacy problem or language (r)evolution?

The growing popularity of texting (sending SMS-messages) has been accompanied by excitement about the emergence of a new form of communication on the one hand, and growing fears about the potentially destructive influence of texting on young people’s literacy on the other. Both views have been widely represented in the popular press. John Humphrys, who has been described as a language purist, warns that texters are “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours eight hundred years ago.” On the other side of the battlefield, David Crystal assures that talk about the revolutionary character of texting is much exaggerated. During this lecture arguments on both sides will be discussed.

Do texters misuse language through poor grammar and appalling spelling or do they display enormous levels of creativity through numerous linguistic innovations? Are our codes understandable for others? Do we use textese at all? How much can actually be said in 160 characters? Are text-messages for code-breakers or poets? These are some of the questions to be answered during the lecture.

This discussion and student group work will lead to a conclusion as to whether texting poses a threat to our literacy levels or marks language evolution in the age of brevity and speed that we live in.

Embedded multimodality in text-messages

Due to its text-only character, texting is often perceived as expressively impaired and seen purely as a linguistic experiment.

Based on the analysis of nearly two thousand English and Polish text-messages and referring to multimodal discourse analysis framework, I argue that texting represents “embedded multimodality”, which I define as the use of discursive tools inherent in the primary mode in order to perform multimodal communication within a technologically mono-modal medium.

I distinguish between descriptions and enactment. I also point to the emerging grammar of embedded multimodality. Finally, I suggest some routes along which multimodal elements could have found their way into texting.

Abstract of the lecture:

Texting – threat or opportunity

The growing popularity of texting (sending SMS-messages) has been accompanied by excitement about the emergence of a new form of communication on the one hand, and growing fears about the potentially destructive influence of texting on young people’s literacy on the other. Both views have been widely represented in the popular press. John Humphrys, who has been described as a language purist, warns that texters are “vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours eight hundred years ago.” On the other side of the battlefield, David Crystal assures that talk about the revolutionary character of texting is much exaggerated. During this lecture arguments on both sides will be discussed.

Do texters misuse language through poor grammar and appalling spelling or do they display enormous levels of creativity through numerous linguistic innovations? Are our codes understandable for others? Do we use textese at all? How much can actually be said in 160 characters? Are text-messages for code-breakers or poets? These are some of the questions to be answered during the lecture.

This discussion and student group work will lead to a conclusion as to whether texting poses a threat to our communication skills or whether it is an opportunity for people to develop new ways of communicating, more adjusted to the age of brevity and speed that we live in.

You can find all the information about the conference here.

You can find all the relevant information about the conference here.