Advertisement

Pedagogy, Audience, and Attitudes: Influencing University Students’ Metalinguistic Awareness About Texting Practices

  • Rebecca RoederEmail author
  • Elizabeth Miller
  • Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reports on a pilot study examining the effect of pedagogy on university students’ metalinguistic awareness of emergent norms of communication in text messaging. The specific foci of investigation are audience awareness, attitudes about appropriate use of language, and attitudes about particular language forms. Findings are based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of survey data collected over two semesters from 108 undergraduates at a large state university in the American Southeast. Our observations support previous findings that explicit instruction can lead to increased awareness of pragmatic norms. However, results also suggest an ongoing need to cultivate students’ metapragmatic awareness of their own language use in digitally mediated communication according to audience and in relation to their attitudes toward prescriptive norms, in order to enable them to recognize, analyze, and evaluate their own practices.

References

  1. Aziz, S., Shamim, M., Aziz, M. F., & Avais, P. (2013). The impact of texting/SMS language on academic writing of students: What do we need to panic about? Elixir Linguistics and Translation, 55, 12884–12890.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, N. S. (2007). My best day: Presentation of self and social manipulation in Facebook and IM. Internet Research, 8, 17–20.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, N. S., Squires, L., Tench, S., & Thompson, M. (2005). Tethered or mobile? Use of away messages in instant messaging by American college students. In R. Ling & P. E. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile communications: Re-negotiation of the social sphere (pp. 293–311). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baym, N. K. (1995). The performance of humor in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowie, R. L., & Bond, C. L. (1994). Influencing teachers’ attitudes toward Black English: Arewe making a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bündgens-Kosten, J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward African American Vernacular English:Influence of contact with linguistics on ambivalent attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, P., & Stevenson, S. (2009). An unsupervised model for text message normalization. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity (pp. 71–78). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  10. Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Drouin, M. A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of textese and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drouin, M. A., & Davis, C. (2009). R U texting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drouin, M. A., & Driver, B. (2014). Texting, textese and literacy abilities: A naturalistic study. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language andgender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes, socialmeanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grace, A. A. S. (2013). Mobile phone text messaging language: How and why undergraduates use textisms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Haas, C., Takayoshi, P., Carr, B., Hudson, K., & Pollock, R. (2011). Young people’s everyday literacies: The language features of instant messaging. Research in the Teaching of English, 45, 378–404.Google Scholar
  18. Hard af Segerstad, Y. (2005). Language in SMS: A socio-linguistic view. In R. Harper, L. Palen, & A. Taylor (Eds.), The inside text: Social, cultural and design perspectives on SMS (pp. 33–52). Norwell, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holtgraves, T., & Paul, K. (2013). Texting versus talking: An exploration in telecommunication language. Telematics and Informatics, 30, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Halmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  21. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Kiesling, S. (1998). Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2, 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Matthews, D. (Ed.). (2014). Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (Vol. 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. McConachy, T., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Meta-pragmatic awareness and intercultural competence: The role of reflection and interpretation in intercultural mediation. In F. Dervin & Z. Gross (Eds.), Intercultural competence in education (pp. 13–30). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pavalanathan, U., & Eisenstein, J. (2015). Audience-modulated variation in online socialmedia. American Speech, 90, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Preston, D. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (2000). Language knowledge and awareness survey: Finalresearch report. Urbana, IL: Conference on College Composition and Communication, National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  32. Spilioti, T. (2009). Graphemic representation of text-messaging: Alphabet-choice and code-switches in Greek SMS. Pragmatics, 19, 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spilioti, T. (2011). Beyond genre: Closings and relational work in text-messaging. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 67–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Spilioti, T. (2014). On the mobile again! Opening sequences in Greek text-messaging. In M. Christodoulidou (Ed.), Analysing Greek talk-in-interaction (pp. 240–261). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction ofpopular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 667–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thurlow, C., & Brown, A. (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online. Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html
  37. van Dijk, C. N., van Witteloostuijn, M., Vasić, N., Avrutin, S., & Blom, E. (2016). The influence of texting language on grammar and executive functions in primary school children. PLoS One, 11, e0152409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vandergriff, I. (2010). Humor and play in CMC. In R. Taiwo (Ed.), The handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction (pp. 235–251). Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Roeder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth Miller
    • 1
  • Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations