One implication: choice in texting

‗Competing‘ respellings refers here to alternative respellings of the same word. You, for example, can be spelt conventionally as you (4560 times); or u (3043 times), an example of eye dialect for stylistic effect; or ya (256), ye (9) or yer (14), used to reflect regional or informal spoken forms. Other examples include the following and the full list can be found in Appendix 5.6.

Figure 5.18 ‗Competing‘ respellings

av(8), hve(6), ave(5), hav(106), r(422), ar(2),

gud(40), gd(25), goodo(3), jus(18), jst(6),

tomoz(9), tomorro(6), tomorow(4), tomora(3), tomo(361), morrow(6), mora(1), tom(24), 2mora(14),

tomoro(10), 2morrow(9), tmw(9), 2morow(4), 2morro(4), 2mrrw(4), 2moz(3), 2mrw(2), amoro(2), 2moro(42), wot(148), wat(37),

its(435), tis(21),

2nite(45), tonite(10), 2night(12), 2nigt(3), hallo(1), ello(9), allo (5), helo(6), herro(3),

thanx(32), thx(5), tank(2), sanks(2), thnx(2), thks(1), thanxs(1), tnx(2), cud(48), cld(19),

txt(94), tx(6), tex(2), luv(46), lv(4), lov(4), wud(38), wld(22),

cos(226), coz(24), cause(4), cuz(3), cs(2), cus(2), cz(2), shud(11), shld(7), shd(3),

pleasey(4), plez(3), pls(35), plse(3), plz(4), pse(2), giv(10), gv(1),

gunna(11), gona(6),

sth(9), somethin(8), summort(3), sumfing(2), summat(2), summing(2), whats(48), wots(17), wats(7), wot's(3),

msg(7), mess(8),

d(21), da(6), th(8), te(2), ze(2) n(182), an(19),

havin(24), avin(6), mornin(23), morn(18), l8r(20), lata(5), l8er(2), mite(9), myt(6),

Some competing respellings illustrate how one function (abbreviation, for example, or eye dialect) can be achieved in different ways by exploiting more than one orthographic principle. The various ways in which words can be colloquially-contracted is illustrated in

ya, ye or yer, which illustrate different ways of representing schwa;1 and in havin (in which the <g> is dropped) or avin (in which the <h> is also dropped), as well as in and, contractions of which are captured by an or n. Respellings of something show several regional pronunciations: summort, sumfing, summat and summing. Different pronunciations of the, to take more examples, can be represented in various regional respellings: d, da, th,

te and ze. Contrasting forms of eye dialect of later are l8r and lata; and of might, mite and myt. Others seem to indicate choices open to texters in reducing the number of characters

used, depending perhaps on how much they wish to abbreviate: thurs or thu, for example, and pls, plse or pse. The choice between clipping or consonant writing in some examples may depend on texters‘ use of predictive texting. back, for example, is abbreviated either as

bac or bk; give as giv or gv; have, as hav (21) but also twice as hve, and as av (8); tomorrow

as tomo or tmw. Weekend occurs variously as wkend, w’end, and w’kend.

Others, however, suggest choices between two functions of respelling: the aforementioned variants of you (ya and u) are echoed in the spoken chatty form of please as pleasey, versus the brief abbreviated plz. Elsewhere, more conventional eye dialect form contrast with consonant writing in, for example, would, which occurs both as eye dialect, wud, but also as consonant writing, wld. Similarly could is spelt either cud or cld (7 times); and similar examples include good (gud or gd); and love (luv or lv).

The choice of wot or wat as variants of what is interesting as an example of conventional versus apparently new spelling forms. Wot is an example of phonetic respelling used in grafitti, as in ‗Wot, no butter?‘ (Crystal 2003: 275).1 Whether the less conventional form,

wat, is a competing form of phonetic respelling or simply an attempt to cut down on

characters is difficult to determine. The form is reflected also in wen, for when. A similar process may be in evidence with come, which occurs both as the conventional eye dialect form cum but also as the less conventional clipping com.

5.5

Chapter Summary

The above investigation draws on CorTxt to explore the meaning-making potential of respellings in texting. The observation that most spelling variation in CorTxt follows or extends one or more orthographic principles of the English language and thus reflects historical and current spelling practices is significant in providing empirical support for those who challenge the assertion that spelling in Txt is random or unprecedented and who argue that, by choosing to spell in principled ways which deviate from expected conventions, texters use respellings in meaningful ways. The assertion that texters have

1 _{‗Wot no …?‘ was a popular post-war graffiti in Britain, accompanied by the picture of a figure peering over} a wall, reproduced below, which commented on the lack of various items in the aftermath of the Second World War. According to Crystal (2003), it also occurred in similar forms in other countries.

choice, vividly illustrated through ‗competing‘ respellings such as u, ye or ya for you and which underpins sociocultural understanding of creative respellings, implies texters actively and creatively choose how to present themselves, albeit constrained by contextual factors and orthographic principles.

It is naturally not possible to determine what texters intend to mean through respellings, or how they are interpreted by interlocutors, but research into other writing domains (such as interview transcripts, fanzines or graffiti) allows us to speculate on what spelling in texting

may mean. As in other attempts to reflect spoken or regional pronunciations, colloquial

contractions and respellings are likely to fulfil an indexical function and create an arena for participant relationships which, as in spoken interaction, are informal and intimate. Informality is thus construed by texters drawing on their awareness of features of everyday, face-to-face conversation, creating an expressive and wordy language which by most accounts can be captured through Fortunati‘s (2001: 314) term of ‗written orality‘. At the same time, however, texters also draw on existing patterns of abbreviation which contrast somewhat with the speech-like language described above and so add what could be described as illusions of brevity to what are often lengthy, expressive messages. The purely visual device of phonetic spelling also disrupts the relaxed intimacy with unconventional and eye-catching forms which evoke the originality and radicality of advertising, graffiti and underground subcultures. Through signalling deviance from expected, mainstream norms, these respellings affirm both group identity1 and distance from other social groups. Putting all this together, we can see that texters express attitudes and emotions, define relationships, and construct texting identities through construal of spoken informality, brevity and deviance.

Texters‘ choices, I suggest, can be described in terms of performativity (Butler 1990). That is, through their choice of respellings, texters draw on awareness of other language domains in construing texting identities through performances of spoken informality, of brevity and of deviance. This perspective recognises, as does Shortis‘s (2007a,b) metaphor of the

orthographic palette, the active role that texters play in choosing how to mean, how

surrounding discourses and conventions constrain these choices, and how the choices made can change according to purpose and audience. However, performativity also extends Shortis‘s metaphor not only by beginning to explain what spelling choices may ‗mean‘ but

also by encompassing everyday creativity as well as structural ellipsis and features of texted grammar. That is, the concept of performativity allows us to go beyond the narrow focus on spelling suggested by previous text messaging research. The full implications for texting are explored in Chapter 9.

Of relevance now is the decision not to normalise spelling in CorTxt. This decision recognises the argument that respellings in texting are a potentially significant form of meaning-making which would be ‗severely misrepresented in a reset, spell checked, cleaned-up typeset equivalent‘ (Shortis 2007a: 4). In other words, if texters use respellings to communicate informality, express attitudes, define group boundaries and perform texting identities, normalisation removes an essential part of interpersonal meaning.

CHAPTER SIX

EVERYDAY CREATIVITY IN TEXT MESSAGING

6.1 Introduction

This chapter reveals how everyday creativity such as idiom manipulation occurs not only in spoken interaction but also plays an important role in texting. Creativity as a normal if not prevalent feature of everyday speech is well-documented by linguists (Tannen 1989; Cook 1994, 1997, 2000; Crystal 1998; Carter 2004b; Maybin and Swann 2006). It is seen (by most) to include not only the deliberate and amusing play with idioms, metaphor or morphology described by Carter (2004b) as pattern re-forming but also the more covert repetition of interlocutors‘ vocabulary and grammar choices which, as described by Tannen (1989) and Carter (2004b), structures everyday conversation and which Carter terms

pattern forming. The above studies also raise largely unresolved yet thought-provoking

questions, including the extent to which ‗successful‘ creativity relies on receivers‘ interpretations and responses or whether it can be recognised solely through form, whether

all manipulation of forms can be deemed creative, and whether links can be made between

creativity and context (Carter 2007; Maybin and Swann 2007).

Texting would nonetheless seem a fertile ground for everyday creativity: not only because its evolving nature and relaxing of prescribed language use encourage creative manipulation, but because text messages often resemble conversations and are sent between intimates for informal, phatic purposes.1 Research into spoken creativity suggests it is indulged in not only ‗for fun‘ but also to create convergence between speakers, indicate group membership, display identity, offer new perspectives and challenge interlocutors (Cook 2000; Carter 2004b). Contexts in which creativity occurs are therefore likely to be informal where relations are equal. Another function of creativity, particularly in developing social contexts where conventions are suspended or evolving, is the forging of identities and styles (Carter 2004b: 200). Despite this, investigation into everyday creativity in computer-mediated communication is only beginning (North 2006; 2007) and creativity in texting interpreted narrowly as referring to respelling (Hard af Segersteg 2002; Crystal 2008).

This chapter therefore draws on CorTxt to show that everyday, speech-like creativity not only occurs in texting but plays an important role because of, rather than despite, technological constraints. It begins by exploring what is meant by language play and

creativity, and discussing methods and issues involved in investigating creative language.

Exploration of repetition as a pattern-forming choice in CorTxt highlights linguistic and contextual differences between spoken and texted interaction, while analysis of pattern- reforming choices suggests that the desire to be creative often overrides concerns with brevity and signals texters‘ metalinguistic awareness. As well as extending linguistic research which limits texted creativity to respelling, this investigation of texting addresses Carter‘s (2007) recognition of the need for greater understanding of the effect context has on creativity, whilst drawing to linguists‘ attention the potential for creativity in texting and its pedagogical implications.