Data instrument: determining attestation by the ‘Seen/Use’ method

The questionnaire schedule includes a method for gauging questionnaire respondents’ reported recognition and use of linguistic variables, here variant spellings and emoji. This method was adapted from an earlier study of Bristolian dialect by teachers working with 16-19 college students. This contrasted the recognition and use of features of Bristolian accent, dialect lexis and dialect grammar (see Shortis 2006, Shortis 2011b, Blake & Shortis with Powell 2011). In the Bristolian questionnaire surveys (N = 978), respondents reported which variants they had heard in local spoken interaction and which they reported using themselves. A comparatively high level of reported encounters and reported use suggested a variant in common unmarked circulation in the Bristol area: for example, the rhotic ‘r’. Low indices for both reported encounters and reported use suggested a variant falling into obsolescence, or becoming restricted to sublocalised and/or age-graded circulation: for example, the dialect formulation ‘casn’t’ for the common standard English contraction ‘can’t’ tended to be reported mainly by older speakers in dense social networks such as the locality around the old tobacco factories.76 A comparatively high level of reported encounters along with low indices for reported use was interpreted as indicating that a variant was undergoing some level of visible stigmatisation: for example, respondents appeared to avoid the social liability incurred by use of the salient localised accent feature known as the Bristol ‘l’ (see Wells 1982).

This attestation method was adapted for this study’s questionnaire surveys following observation in field-notes of localised idiolectal and microlectal profiles of spelling choice. This was found to operate in conjunction with systemic differences in the citations of SMS abbreviated forms in data-sets drawn from actual situated interaction and the contrastive exemplification of SMS orthographic choice which featured in the public sphere, in news reporting and in popular reference such as that represented by Aitchison (2007) or Crystal

(2004, 2008). Respondents were asked to identify their reported experience and reported use of forty variant spellings, sourced mainly from corpus evidence. The randomly sequenced list also included sixteen other variants, copied from exemplification in public mediated-representations, but not observed as frequent or salient by any other data-collection method.77 _{This design} enabled some comparison of the possible contrast identified in in research question 1.

Following the method applied in my earlier study of Bristolian dialect, the questions elicited the level of self-reported encounters with particular variants - ticked as ‘Seen’ - and the self- reported use of these same variants in the respondents’ own messaging - ticked as ‘Use’. The survey is predicated on the linked propositions that high indices for both indicate a relative frequency of attestation, and by implication, possible indication of emergent comparatively unmarked choice. The scheme also elicited forms which field-notes suggested were undergoing possible stigmatisation. These attracted indices for a high level of self-reported recognition, and significantly lower figures for self-reported use in active repertoires. Typically such variants took the form of initialisms, acronyms and alphanumeric and/or symbol rebuses such as elaborated emoji. These more esoteric forms were commonly exemplified in popular commentaries (see Appendix V, Chapter 6) - or ‘public sphere metadiscourses’ - while appearing to be infrequent in corpus evidence.

High indices for ‘Seen’

and

High indices for both

‘Use’

Variant spelling is in frequent and comparatively unmarked circulation

Common letter and number homophone spellings, as found in corpus

Low indices for ‘Seen’

and low indices for ‘Use’

V a r i a n t s p e l l i n g i s i n comparatively infrequent and /or localised circulation

E l a b o r a t e d e m o t i c o n s , initialisms and acronyms sourced in ‘public sphere’ news media coverage

High indices for ‘Seen’

and low indices for ‘Use’

Variant spelling is experienced frequently but its lower indices for use suggest a perceived stigma in using it.

Iconic SMS respellings such a s ‘ C y a l 8 r ’ a n d m o r e generally the use of <8> as a ‘rhymogram’.

Figure 4.3 Seen/Use attestation method for evaluating indices for the ‘forty variables’ data-set

So the the ‘forty variables’ data-set table reported in Chapter 6 is constituted by a mixture of variant spellings sourced from, and frequent in the SMS corpus or by related fieldwork along with 14 variant spellings extrapolated from ‘public sphere’ popular commentary, as outlined below (see section 6.3.2 and tables 6.9a and 6.9b).

Source of variant pair

Example of 40 pairings as originally randomly sequenced in questionnaire: see Appendix

Comment and coding

Respellings attested in 2000-2006 corpus or fieldnotes

<U> for <you> ;<2> for <to>; <r> for <are>; <LOL> for (laugh out loud>; <4> for <for>; <wat>for <wat>; <goin> for <going>: <wot> for <wot>; <txt> for <text> ; <:)> for smiley [rebus] ; <wanna> for wanna>; <ill> for <I’ll>; <2nite> for <tonight> ; <soz> for <sorry; <tomoz> for <tomorrow>; <2moz> for <tomorrow>; <tonight> for <tonight>; <gr8> for <great>; <2> for <too>; <skool> for <school>; <bro> for <brother>; <tomo> for <tomorrow>; <m8s> for <mates>; <msg> for msg> <@> for screaming[rebus]; <2c> for <to see>

Spellings recast in descending order of frequency of attestation showing limited overlap with public sphere media

representations and popular accounts. Code: CORPUS Cited in media accounts: (Hurley 2003, Cramb 2003).

<skool> for <school>; <bro> for <brother>; <@> for screaming[rebus]; <2c> for <to see>; <AAR8> for <at any rate>; <CWOT> for <complete waste of time>; <hols> for <holidays>; <ICBW> for <It could be worse>; <o> for

<nothing>; <ps> for parents>; <cyal8er> for <for see you later>; <TPTB> for the powers that be>; <VVV> for <very very very>.

Note the more frequent use of initialisms and acronomy in the SMS exemplifications which feature in public sphere media representations and popular accounts.

Cramb 2003: SSSMS

Metro

(Stevenson 2000)

<BTDT> for <been there done that>; <BAU> for <business as usual>; <2day> for <today>; <TIC> for <tongue in cheek>; Stevenson 2000: METRO Mander SMS glossary 2001 9/40 citations Mander 2001: M Letts Teacher Diary glossary 2006 11/40 citations Diary 2006: D Listed in Crystal’s two glossaries (2004, 2008) 14/40 citations in C4 13/40 citations in C8 Crystal 2004: C4; Crystal 2008: C8

Chapter 4/Chapter 6/ Appendix VI