Introduction
Social media is a general term that covers all internet-based services and platforms that promote or enhance social interactions between two or more parties that use them as a critical aspect of interpersonal relationship. Boyd and Ellison (2010) defined social media as “a group of internet-based applications on the ideological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content”. The inception of social media can be traced to as early as the 1980s in the form of Internet relay chat, UseNet, and bulletin board system (BBS). These platforms are not generally considered as social media; however, they are believed to be the foundational precursors (Pimentel & Diniz, 2014). The 1990s ushered in more refined platforms such as eBay and weblog (it was later on changed to blog). Trip advisor and Wikipedia came to fore in 2001, while WordPress and Skype made their debut in 2003 (Khan, Ayaz, & Faheem, 2016). In 2004, however, the era of more interactive new age social media was ushered by the creation of Facebook. Facebook is hailed as the most utilized social media platform. YouTube followed in 2005, which mainly focused on sharing videos and audio communication. Twitter, on the other hand, was operationalized in 2006. In the recent past, new social media applications and sites have mainly emerged complimenting Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Sociolinguists continue to appreciate the input of social media to the world of communication and socialization in general. According to Marcel Danesi (2016), “the online world has altered how linguistic identity is created and managed, and how the sense of self is constructed, not to mention how we go about making contact with others, constructing messages, and carrying out conversations.” Social media language falls under computer-mediated communication (CMC), which captures the adaptation of communication on digital platforms and how they have managed to absorb or propagate certain dichotomies and variables observed in society. Variables such as ethnicity, gender, race, and class often influence communication within social settings (Goel et al., 2016). Social media mirrors them in a number of ways. The language of new social media has enhanced space for creativity and self-expression within the society against the backdrop of globalized communication.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Background
It is prudent to understand that communication over social media incorporates multimodality. Multimodality entails the “use of more than one sensory mode of communication (visual, audio, and so on)- and hypermedia.” These elements make social media very interactive and convenient as a communication platform. Hypermedia, on the other hand, focuses on the linkage or connection of different media that are not necessarily part of a text. This is usually done through a process dubbed hyper textuality (Goel et al., 2016). Many social media platforms provide room for the attachment of hyperlinks that enable a user to be immediately linked to a document on clicking or opening the attached hyperlink. According to Danesi (2016), “hypertext makes it easy for users to browse through related topics, regardless of their presented order.”
The new social media has incorporated different formats of communicating. With the existence of synchronous and asynchronous communication, social media has impacted how different individuals express themselves. The synchronous communication mostly takes place when two or more communicating parties are aware of an active exchange taking place. Many platforms, an online user can actively and in real-time communicate with another. This mostly adopts a conversational structure. Asynchronous communication, as observed on social media, takes place where an “interlocutor is not necessarily aware that a message has occurred -this is characterized by bulletin boards, emails, chatrooms, and blogs” (Danesi, 2016). The latter occurs mostly in written form and carry distinct social values which are dependent on the writing genre.
All in all, when it comes to new social media, the function and interpretation of communication have transformed immensely. Danise (2016) asserts that through social media interactions, the “value of a text and a nature of conversation are changing radically.” These sentiments can be well understood through an analysis of language aspects that have in one way or another been affected by the continued prevalence of social media within the society.
Extended Use of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Other Compact Forms in Language
The new social media has a distinct character which has seen adopt an element of compactness to promote ease in communication. This quality was dubbed Netlingo in 2006 by David Crystal highlighting the deliberate shortening or abbreviating of words to allow interlocutors to enhance the speed at which their communication could be sent and received (Pimentel & Diniz, 2014). Many users opt to remove vowels in words that are frequently used as well as expressions that are prevalent in different conversations on social media platforms. This does not distort the meaning, nor does it make comprehension a daunting task. For instance, a statement such as “How are you?” could be written as “How r u?”. The latter is not hard to decipher for any interlocutor.
Another element of the Netlingo is the elimination of apostrophes and punctuations. An individual may write “im “instead of “I’m.” By doing so, a user saves time which otherwise could have been utilized in making some of the deliberate keystrokes. This is known as the “save a keystroke principle,” a term popularized by contemporary linguists in the 2000s (Khan, Ayaz, & Faheem, 2016). Additionally, much of the communication of the new social media does not keep up with the case sensitive rules. Therefore, it precipitates the random use of capital letters or utter ignoring of these cases altogether. However, the cases may be used for expressive objectives. Capital letters may be used to express seriousness or insistence on a matter. For instance, “COME HERE” may be deemed or interpreted as commanding in comparison to “come here,” which may be said to be less expressive.
Diversity of Linguistic Markers and Dialects
With the widespread use of social media, there has been a notable increase in creativity and diversity. This has affected the written language in many aspects, such as grammatical structure, spelling, and semantic meaning. Social media plays to different individuals drawn from diverse communities and geographical spaces (Pimentel & Diniz, 2014). These individuals have distinct dialects that are borne from their everyday speech within informal settings. The variations in dialects continue to be present in various interactions online. The dominant languages online, such as English are affected by linguistic situations of the various populace engaging online (Pimentel & Diniz, 2014). Given that social media is a global platform, it means that different communicators speak different of dialects of the same language, then for the sake of mutual intelligibility they will be forced to engage in their distinct language.
On Twitter, it is evident that different dialects emerge dependent on engaging parties. Black Twitter is synonymous with African Americans that speak much of the informal slang that is linked with the community. For instance, it is common to see these particular social media users writing “ain” instead of its real phonetic spelling, “ain’t” or “yeen” (phonetic spelling of “you ain’t”) (Danesi, 2016). However, these observations are highly influenced by the socioeconomic status and literacy levels that the engaging parties fall in. Well-educated members of the society tend to stick to standard formal English, that is phonetically and semantically comprehensible across different audiences. Al-Salman (2017) notes that there exist lexical words that are synonymous with specific demographics and thus are captured in their engagements on social media platforms. For instance, words such as graffiti and cookout are well known by other English speakers but are extensively used in certain demographics or settings. It is not lost to many that the social media has continuously been inclined towards informality within the discourse advanced by the participating parties.
Code-switching is another element observed in the new social media language. Danesi (2016) describes this as “the practice of moving between high and low forms of language.” The high and low forms of language have distinct differences. The former is prestigious, formal, abides by literacy traditions, and exudes authority and power. The latter, on the other hand, is less prestigious, intimate, mainly verbal and, informal. It is also associated with group solidarity and has less inclination towards social stratification (Ngwane & Madonda, 2018). For social media users that are bilingual code-switching occurs regularly due to fluency challenges. The code-switching, for instance, among Latin Americans, is common both in spoken and written communication. Words such as “amigo” (friend), “loco” (crazy), “chica” (girl) are common in communiques made on social media (Danesi, 2016). At times, the code-switching, particularly among the young interlocutors, may be a sign of a desire to achieve identity-differentiation. On social media settings, a user may attempt code-switching to stamp his or her heritage guiding the discourse forward. At times, the code-switching may occur with the intent of articulating a topic effective in the best terms possible.
e-Sociolects and their Influence on Language
The new social media has seen the connection of divergent “virtual speech communities,” which may mirror the offline outfits or not. Danesi (2016) gives an example of Twitter communities that converge due to the commonalities observed in interests or occupations. As such, these communities or e-sociolects forge their distinctive language. For instance, a pop star such as Cardi B has a following that consistently mimics her signature sounds as well as her regular code-mixing, which is mostly a cross between American English and Latin.
Within the digital conversations, several social variables such as gender, age, literacy levels, and socioeconomic status create new e-sociolects. These variables profoundly impact language. Formality in social media conversations is tied to age. Many elderly social media users tend to engage in formal and standard English, unlike their young counterparts. Lexical choices capture these facts well. For instance, the use of terms such as “bro” and “dude” almost likely point to a young social media user (Danesi, 2016). The elderly social media interlocutors tend to use full sentences within the character limits availed instead of relying on ellipses, which is prevalent among much of the young populace found online. Genders have been known to show slight differences in their communication. Female users’ communication is observed on the various social media platforms to incorporate high emoticon usage in comparison to their male counterparts (Pimentel & Diniz, 2014).
Additionally, the usage for specific acronyms differs when it comes to the two genders. Danesi (2016) notes that women and men laugh differently, especially on twitter. Men tend to use LMFAO while women prefer the acronym LOL extensively to communicate the same. Additionally, the author states that alphabetic character repetition is common among female users. This entails “pumping of identical characters in sequence in informal communication to emphasize an emotional content.” There several examples, such as “nooo waay,” “niceee,” “yeees.” Other elements associated with young female users are repeated exclamations where a user strings several similar exclamations sequentially.
The social media has also affected language in that new communities within the network have established their distinct slang with the goal of standing out from the rest. There exist cliques that are keen on carving their niche hence the e-slang establishment. Gaming cliques have in the recent past been associated with their own lingo dubbed ‘leetspeak”. This talk is essential particularly in chat threads where they desire to have only members of their clique enjoy mutual intelligibility courtesy of the distinct e-slang. It is prudent to note that the e-slang continues to be divergent mirroring the typical slang (Latip-Yusoph, 2016). There also exist common e-slag which is usually linked to the features of a particular social media site. Facebook’s befriending option has led to the change of “friending” and “unfriending” as part of allowing and deleting individuals from one’s e-social circle. Other words such as “viral” and “like” have evolved and have had their meanings “reappropriated by social media.”
Conclusion
New social media has been at the forefront of enhancing interaction in a highly globalized world. The various platforms that have emerged over the years. Individuals have been forced to adapt their language to match interweb demands. With the existence of word limits on specific popular platforms, the users have been forced to compact their words through the use of acronyms, abbreviations, and omissions of certain linguistic elements.
Additionally, social media has led to the expansion of dialects with users keen on achieving ethnic identity or mutual intelligibility. They are also embracing code-switching, which, in a significant way, affects the common language as well as the socialization process. Lastly, social media, through the creation of e-sociolects, has forged new distinct forms of language that restricted to specific cliques and communities. The e-slang has continuously stood out with dynamic aspects dependent on different e-sociolects.
References
Al-Salman, S. M. (2017). Has the Power of Language been Compromised by the Influence of Social Media? Studies in English Language Teaching , 5 (2), 172. doi:10.22158/selt.v5n2p172
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2010). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. IEEE Engineering Management Review , 38 (3), 16-31. doi:10.1109/emr.2010.5559139
Danesi, M. (2016). Language, Society, and New Media: Sociolinguistics Today . London, England: Routledge.
Goel, R., Soni, S., Goyal, N., Paparrizos, J., Wallach, H., Diaz, F., & Eisenstein, J. (2016). The Social Dynamics of Language Change in Online Networks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 41-57. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47880-7_3
Khan, I. U., Ayaz, M., & Faheem, M. (2016). The Role of Social Media in Development of English Language Vocabulary at University Level. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , 6 (11). doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v6-i11/2444
Ngwane, K., & Madonda, C. (2018). An Investigation on the Impact of Social Media on Teaching and Learning: A Case Study of Durban University of Technology. EDULEARN18 Proceedings . doi:10.21125/edulearn.2018.1941
Pimentel, A. D., & Diniz, C. D. (2014). Language Used in Social Networks: Creativity and Self-Expression. Psychology , 05 (19), 2131-2137. doi:10.4236/psych.2014.519215
Latip-Yusoph, S. (2016). Language Trends in Social Media: Manifestations of Meranaws’ Use of English on Facebook. US-China Foreign Language , 14 (7). doi:10.17265/1539-8080/2016.07.003
