Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 3 no. 4 (2022)

Pragmatics of Sent and Unsent Messages Via Personal Messages and Group Chats

Mark Philippe Guyud

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

New features of communication technology are gaining much attention in computer-mediated communication in relation to speech acts and conversational implicatures which aim to transcend the conventional and nonconventional meaning of words, phrases, or sentences when an interlocutor conveys messages in varied contexts. By examining 30 exchanges and conducting survey interviews, this study concerns the illocutionary acts of sent and unsent messages both in personal messages and group chats via an online messaging application. The findings show that there are 7 identified meanings of unsent messages; moreover, although there are similarities, the meaning varies depending on the context. The study also shows that students use representatives more frequently than the other illocutionary acts in sending messages both in personal and group chats. It is also noteworthy to point out that students rarely use greeting speech acts in their messages.



References:

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University press.
  2. Austin, J.L. (1976) How to Do Things with Words; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.
  3. Adjei, S. (2013). Discourse analysis: examining language use in context. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
  4. Antaki, C. (2008). Discourse analysis and conversation analysis. IN: Alasuutari. P., Bickman L, and Brannan, J. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, London Sage, 431-446.
  5. Bach, K. (1998). Speech acts. in E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.
  6. Bahing, et al. (2018). English speech acts of illocutionary force in class interaction. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. Vol 9 (3), 113-120.
  7. Barreto, M., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Shahinper, K. (2003). Who wants to know? The effect of audience on identity expression among minority group members. British Journal of Social Psychology (2003), 42, 299–318.
  8. Bayat, N. (2013). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70, 213 – 221.
  9. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
  10. 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. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-Negotiation of the Social Sphere (pp. 293– 311). London: Springer-Verlag.
  11. Baym, N. K. (1995). The emergence of community in computermediated interaction. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: ComputerMediated Communication and Community (pp. 138–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Baumeister, R. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3–26.
  13. Calculator, S. N. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 93–113.
  14. Cohen, A. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 213–235.
  15. Davies, R. (2005). Implicatures and cooperative principle.Language and Culture. Aichi Uiversity
  16. De Felice, R. & Deane, P. (2012). Identifying Speech Acts in EMails: Toward Automated Scoring of the TOEIC E-Mail Task. ETS, Princeton, New Jersey.
  17. Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W. A. (2003). Social translucence: Using minimalist visualizations of social activity to support collective interaction. In K. Ho¨o¨k, D. Benyon, & A. Munro (Eds.), Designing Information Spaces: The Social Navigation Approach (pp. 17–42). New York: Springer
  18. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words.President and Fellows of Harvard College.First Harvard University Press paperback edition 1991, 22- 40.
  19. Hall, J.A., Pennington, N., Lueders, A. (2014) Impression management and formation on Facebook: a lens model approach. New Media & Society 16: 958–982.
  20. Hanna, N. & Richards, D. (2019). Speech Act Theory as an Evaluation Tool for Human–Agent Communication. Algorithms.
  21. Hidiyat, A. (2016). Speech acts: force behind words. English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris. Vol 9 (1), 1-12.
  22. Hickey, R. (2001) Language change.Essen University, Amsterdam
  23. Kurdghelashvili, T. (2015). Speech acts and politeness strategies in an EFL classroom in Georgia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences Vol. (9), 306-309.
  24. Light, J. & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative communication (Vol. 30)
  25. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first sight? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood, & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: OV the beaten track. Understanding relationship processes (Vol. 6, pp. 197–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  26. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 34–47.
  27. Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2007). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part IIIcontributing factors. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 323–335.
  28. Locke, J. (2000). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Lynn Cherry CA: CSLI Publication, page 369.
  29. Lenchuk, I. & Ahmed, A. (2013). Teaching Pragmatic Competence: A Journey from Teaching Cultural Facts to Teaching Cultural Awareness. TESL Canada journal. Vol 30.
  30. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31.
  31. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
  32. McCarthy M.J. and R Carter. 1997. Grammar, tails and affect: constructing expressive choices in discourse.
  33. Nastri, J., Pena, J., & Hancok J. (2006). The construction of away messages: a speech act analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2006) 1025–1045.
  34. Qiu, L, Lin, H, Ramsay, J, et al. (2012) You are what you tweet: personality expression and perception on Twitter. Journal of Research in Personality 46(6): 710–718.\
  35. Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow, UK: Longman.
  36. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.
  37. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, Vol. 5, No. 1., pp. 1-23
  38. Sinclair, J.McH. and Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
  39. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1992) “Towards an analysis of discourse” In Coulthard, M Advance in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.p.15
  40. Tom Tong, S., Corriero, E.F., & Wibowo, K. (2019). Selfpresentation and impressions of personality through text-based online dating profile: A lens model analysis.
  41. Wulandari, S. (2014). Speech act analysis on Facebook statuses used by students of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
  42. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic