Cover not available
Article published In:
Understanding Writing Systems
Edited by Merijn Beeksma and Martin Neef
[Written Language & Literacy 21:1] 2018
► pp. 111–145

Orthographic principles in computer-mediated communication

The SUPER-functions of textisms and their interaction with age and medium

 | Radboud University
Online messages often diverge from the standard language orthography: so-called textisms have become an indispensable part of youths’ written computer-mediated communication (CMC). This paper presents an in-depth corpus study of texts from four new media produced by Dutch youths: MSN chats, text messages, tweets, and WhatsApp messages. It is demonstrated that Dutch informal written CMC, as in other languages, is implicitly governed by orthographic principles. Relative frequencies of textism types in the corpus show how textisms are effectively used by Dutch youths. Textism types are classified here in terms of forms, operations, and, crucially, functions – the ‘SUPER-functions’: textisms can make orthography more Speechlike, Understandable, Playful, Expressive, or Reduced. Moreover, this study proves that preferences for textism types greatly depend on age group and medium. New media have their own combination of characteristics and constraints, while adolescents and young adults appear to have different perceptions on language use and spelling.
Keywords: computer-mediated communication (CMC), new media, social media, writing, orthography, spelling, youth language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Technological innovations, folk-linguistic concerns
    • 2.2Criticism on CMC language in the Netherlands
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Collecting a new media corpus
    • 3.2Compiling a taxonomy of textisms
    • 3.3Coding the data
    • 3.4Classifying the textism types
    • 3.5Delimiting the definition of textisms
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Formal classification
    • 4.2Operational classification
    • 4.3Functional classification
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Age effects
    • 5.2Medium effects
  • 6.Conclusions
  • 7.Limitations and suggestions for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00012.ver
References (70)
References
Amaghlobeli, Natia (2012). Linguistic features of typographic emoticons in SMS discourse. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2(2): 348–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis (2011). Language change and digital media: A review of conceptions and evidence. In Tore Kristiansen & Nikolas Coupland (eds.), Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, 145–161. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Anis, Jacques (2007). Neography: Unconventional spelling in French SMS text messages. In Brenda Danet & Susan C. Herring (eds.), The multilingual internet: Language, culture, and communication online, 87–115. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baars, Renske (2016, April 25). Gelukkig maar! Jeugd spelt expres fout op WhatsApp. AD.nl. [URL].
Baron, Naomi S. (1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language 18(2): 118–141.Google Scholar
(2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23(4): 397–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans (2015). Korterlands: Anarchie in de schrijftaal. Amsterdam: Promotheus Bert Bakker.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander T. (2009). Just the same old story? The linguistics of text messaging and its cultural repercussions. In Charley Rowe & Eva L. Wyss (eds.), Language and new media: Linguistic, cultural, and technological evolutions, 55–73. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Combes, Céline, Olga Volckaert-Legrier & Pierre Largy (2014). Automatic or controlled writing? The effect of a dual task on SMS writing in novice and expert adolescents. In Louise-Amélie Cougnon & Cédrick Fairon (eds.), SMS communication: A linguistic approach, 47–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Craig, David (2003). Instant messaging: The language of youth literacy. The Boothe Prize Essays 2003: 116–133.Google Scholar
Crystal, David (2006). Language and the internet, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel (2017). The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
De Decker, Benny (2015). Prototypische chatspeakkenmerken in Vlaamse tienerchattaal: De invloed van gender, leeftijd en medium. Taal en Tongval 67(1): 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, Sarah & Nenagh Kemp (2012). Text-message abbreviations and language skills in high school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading 35(1): 49–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dings, René (2010). Weg om legging: Onjuist spatiegebruik in het Nederlands. Onze Taal 2010(4): 94–95.Google Scholar
Drouin, Michelle A. & Claire Davis (2009). R u txting? Is the use of text speak hurting your literacy? Journal of Literacy Research 41(1): 46–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durkin, Kevin, Gina Conti-Ramsden & Allan J. Walker (2011). Txt lang: Texting, textism use and literacy abilities in adolescents with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27(1): 49–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa & Elisabeth Stark (2013). Anything goes? SMS, phonographisches Schreiben und Morphemkonstanz. In Martin Neef & Carmen Scherer (eds.), Die Schnittstelle von Morphologie und geschriebener Sprache, 189–210. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2017). The emoji code: How smiley faces, love hearts and thumbs up are changing the way we communicate. London: Michael O’Mara.Google Scholar
Frehner, Carmen (2008). Email – SMS – MMS: The linguistic creativity of asynchronous discourse in the new media age. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Geertsema, Salomé, Charene Hyman & Chantelle van Deventer (2011). Short message service (SMS) language and written language skills: Educators’ perspectives. South African Journal of Education 31(4): 475–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grace, Abbie (2013). Mobile phone text messaging language: How and why undergraduates use textisms. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
Hilte, Lisa, Reinhild Vandekerckhove & Walter Daelemans (2016). Expressiveness in Flemish online teenage talk: A corpus-based analysis of social and medium-related linguistic variation. In Darja Fišer & Martin Beißwenger (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th conference on CMC and social media corpora for the humanities, 30–33. Ljubljana: Academic Publishing Division of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
(2017). Modeling non-standard language use in adolescents’ CMC: The impact and interaction of age, gender and education. In Egon W. Stemle & Ciara R. Wigham (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th conference on CMC and social media corpora for the humanities, 611–615. Bolzano: Eurac Research.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Instagram, Inc. (2018). What is Instagram? Instagram. [URL]
Kemp, Nenagh (2010). Texting versus txting: Reading and writing text messages, and links with other linguistic skills. Writing Systems Research 2(1): 53–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsten Torrado, Úrsula (2014). Development of SMS language from 2000 to 2010: A comparison of two corpora. In Louise-Amélie Cougnon & Cédrick Fairon (eds.), SMS communication: A linguistic approach, 67–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Aloys, Hedwich Steneker & Arjen Spoelstra (2017). Whatsapp taal. [URL]
Labov, William (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lanchantin, Tonia, Aurélie Simoës-Perlant & Pierre Largy (2015). The amount of French text messaging related to spelling level: why some letters are produced and others are not? PsychNology Journal 13(1): 7–56.Google Scholar
Levenshtein, Vladimir I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8): 707–710.Google Scholar
Marrón Fernández de Velasco, Daniel (2015). From texting to Internet Language: Analysis of contemporary language evolution: The case of YouTube. Master thesis, University of Valladolid.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John (2013, April 25). Is texting killing the English language? Time. [URL]Google Scholar
Neef, Martin (2015). Writing systems as modular objects: Proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics. Open Linguistics 1(1): 708–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novak, Petra Kralj, Jasmina Smailovic, Borut Sluban & Igor Mozetič (2015). Sentiment of emojis. PloS One 10(12): 1–21.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman (2013). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN programme, 219–247. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panckhurst, Rachel (2009). Short Message Service (SMS): typologie et problématiques futures. In Teddy Arnavielle (ed.), Polyphonies, pour Michelle Lanvin, 33–52. Université Paul-Valéry: Montpellier 3.Google Scholar
Peersman, Claudia, Walter Daelemans, Reinhild Vandekerckhove, Bram Vandekerckhove & Leona Van Vaerenbergh (2016). The effects of age, gender and region on non-standard linguistic variation in online social networks [URL]Google Scholar
Pelkman, Martha (2015, March 10). What’s App: taalverloedering of taalverrijking? DrsPee. [URL]
Pfeffer, Jürgen, Thomas Zorbach & Kathleen M. Carley (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications 20(1–2): 117–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plester, Beverly, Clare Wood & Victoria Bell (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: Does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Literacy 42(3): 137–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plester, Beverly, Clare Wood & Puja Joshi (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27(1): 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postma, Koos (2011). Geen paniek! Een analyse van de beeldvorming van sms-taal in Nederland. Master thesis, VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Reinkemeyer, Anja (2013). Die Formenvielfalt des langage SMS im Wechselspiel zwischen Effizienz, Expertise und Expressivität: eine Untersuchung der innovativen Schreibweise in französischen SMS. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Rosen, Larry D., Jennifer Chang, Lynne Erwin, L. Mark Carrier & Nancy A. Cheever (2010). The relationship between ‘textisms’ and formal and informal writing among young adults. Communication Research 37(3): 420–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hannah, & Paul Rössler (2012). Orthographic variables. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 221–244. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Carl (2013, January 8). Nederlandse taal verslechtert. 10 air. [URL]
Schwartz, H. Andrew, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Margaret L. Kern, Lukasz Dziurzynski, Stephanie M. Ramones, Megha Agrawal … Lyle H. Ungar (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Lucas (2017, March 9). WhatsAppachtig taalgebruik. Neerlandistiek. [URL]
Shortis, Tim (2007). Gr8 txtpectations: The creativity of text spelling. English Drama Media 81: 21–26.Google Scholar
Silva, Cláudia (2011). Writing in Portuguese chats :). A new wrtng systm? Written Language & Literacy 14(1): 143–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snap Inc. (2018). When does Snapchat delete Snaps and Chats? Snapchat Support. [URL]
Stoffelen, Anneke (2016, January 21). Docenten: ‘Vak Nederlands moet op de schop’. De Volkskrant. [URL]
Tagg, Caroline (2015). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. London / New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagg, Caroline, Alistair Baron & Paul Rayson (2014). “i didn’t spel that wrong did i. Oops”: Analysis and normalisation of SMS spelling variation. In Louise-Amélie Cougnon & Cédrick Fairon (eds.), SMS communication: A linguistic approach, 217–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin & Alex Brown (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online 11. Retrieved from [URL]
Thurlow, Crispin & Michele Poff (2013). Text messaging. In Susan Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication, 163–190. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ting-Toomey, Stella & Atsuko Kurogi (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(2): 187–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urban Dictionary. “1337 speak.” (cited 13 March 2017). Retrieved from [URL]
Vandekerckhove, Reinhild & Dominiek Sandra (2016). De potentiële impact van informele online communicatie op de spellingpraktijk van Vlaamse tieners in schoolcontext. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 38(3): 201–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varnhagen, Connie K., G. Peggy McFall, Nicole Pugh, Lisa Routledge, Heather Sumida-MacDonald & Trudy E. Kwong (2010). lol: New language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing 23(6): 719–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veer, Neil van der, Steven Boekee, Hans Hoekstra & Oscar Peters (2018, January 29). Nationale Social Media Onderzoek 2018. Newcom Research & Consultancy. [URL]Google Scholar
Verheijen, Lieke (2013). The effects of text messaging and instant messaging on literacy. English Studies 94(5): 582–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Out-of-the-ordinary orthography: the use of textisms in Dutch youngsters’ written computer-mediated communication. York Papers in Linguistics, special issue, PARLAY Proceedings 21: 127–142.Google Scholar
Verheijen, Lieke, & Wessel Stoop (2016). Collecting Facebook posts and WhatsApp chats: corpus compilation of private social media messages. In P. Sojka et al. (eds.), Text, Speech and Dialogue: 19th International Conference, TSD 2016, LNAI 9924, 249–258. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werry, Christopher C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In Susan C. Herring (ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, 47–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winzker, Kristy, Frenette Southwood & Kate Huddlestone (2009). Investigating the impact of SMS speak on the written work of English first language and English second language high school learners. Per Linguam 25(2): 1–16.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele (ed.) (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the Web. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Núñez-Román, Francisco, Alejandro Gómez-Camacho, Olga Fernández-Juliá & Iván Quintero-Rodríguez
2024. English Code-Mixings in WhatsApp interactions among Spanish adolescents and their orthographic competence. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo
Grondelaers, Stefan, Roeland van Hout, Hans van Halteren & Esther Veerbeek
2023. Why do we say them when we know it should be they? Twitter as a resource for investigating nonstandard syntactic variation in The Netherlands. Language Variation and Change 35:2 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Hilte, Lisa
2023. How is Linguistic Accommodation Perceived in Instant Messaging? A Survey on Teenagers’ Evaluations and Perceptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 42:4 ► pp. 431 ff. DOI logo
Verheijen, Lieke & Roeland van Hout
2022. Manifold code-mixing in computer-mediated communication: The use of English in Dutch youths’ informal online writing. Ampersand 9 ► pp. 100091 ff. DOI logo
Hilte, Lisa, Walter Daelemans & Reinhild Vandekerckhove
2021. Interlocutors’ Age Impacts Teenagers’ Online Writing Style: Accommodation in Intra- and Intergenerational Online Conversations. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 DOI logo
Hilte, Lisa, Walter Daelemans & Reinhild Vandekerckhove
2024. Communicating across educational boundaries: accommodation patterns in adolescents’ online interactions. Applied Linguistics Review 15:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Seghers, Mathias, Bernard De Clerck & Chloé Lybaert
2021. Mapping the spread of Dutch non-standard language use on corporate Facebook pages. Nederlandse Taalkunde 26:3 ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.