The Pragmatics of Love Text Messages among University of Uyo Students

Esther Ekom Robert

doi:10.19044/esj.2022.v18n35p28

Esther Ekom Robert Department of English, Faculty of Arts, University of Uyo, Nigeria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2022.v18n35p28

Keywords: Pragmatics, Socio-pragmatics, Common ground, Love textese, University of Uyo students, Mobile telephony

Abstract

In line with the trends in media and pragmatic discourse, studies on texting have been examined, focusing on the creative utilization of language resources as well as their contextual cues. The purpose of this paper is to examine the socio-pragmatic manifestations of love and gender differences in the love text messages of the University of Uyo students. Specifically, the objective of the paper is to confirm whether or not the differences are statistically significant and culturally conditioned. Thus, adopting quantitative analytical methods (chi-square and percentages), the analysis is anchored on the socio-pragmatic theory of Leech (1983) and supplemented by Thurlow and Brown’s (2003) romantic and sexual orientations. Twenty (10 male and 10 female) students of the Faculty of Arts supplied their two most preferred love text messages. The data are categorized according to thematic frames of Love Reiteration (LR), Wooing (Wg), Love Wordplay (LW), and Sexual Behaviour (SB). The results indicate that LR texts were the most preferred (18/45%), while SB texts were the least preferred (5/12.5%). Again, whereas the male students preferred both LR and Wg texts most (6/31.6%) and LW texts least (3/15.7%), the female ones loved LR texts most (12/57.1%) and SB texts least (1/4.8%). Thus, the chi-square quantitative analysis of the results shows that the differences in the text preferences are significant. The paper submits that the University of Uyo students’ love text preferences affirm the second-wave feminist linguistic typology of socio-cultural differences in the language use of men and women in Nigeria. Again, the findings have revealed interesting and varied ideologies about how women and men ought to speak in their speech communities. Based on the conclusion, it is recommended that further socio-pragmatics research be carried out in other tertiary institutions, preferably in the South Eastern and Northern parts of Nigeria or schools outside Nigeria, but beaming research light on the socio-pragmatics of age and status differences as well as differences in the students’ years of study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX Statistics

References

1. Abrams, M. H. & Harpham, G. G. (2009). A glossary of literary terms (9th Ed.). Bostom, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
2. Aboh, R & Amgbapu, P. D. (2022). Pragmatic manifestations and implications of It is well in Nigerian English usage. Pragmatics Discourse and Society, 268-284.
3. Aboh, R & Uduk, H. (2016). The pragmatics of Nigerian English in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s novels. Journal of Languages and Education, 2(3), 6-13.
4. Aboh, R. & Umoekah, E. (2017). A discourse -pragmatic investigation of election and post-election commentaries in Nigerian Newspaper Cartoons. University of Uyo Journal of English and Literature (UUJEL), XI, 18-38.
5. Adetunji, A. (2011). A sociopragmatic study of gender enactment in the romantic texts of Nigerian students. Ibadan Journal, 7, 102-122.
6. Akande, A. T. & Akinwale, O. T. (2010). Spelling practices in text messaging. In A. Kaul, R. Taiwo, A. Taiwo (Ed.). A handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: language structures and social interaction 1st ed., (pp. 350-360). USA: Information Science Reference. http://www.igi-global.com/reference.
7. Akinde, O. A., Bukola, A. F., & Paul, O. I. (2022). Impacts of text messaging abbreviations on the written English essays of the students of Federal Polytechnic Ede. International Journal of Social Science, 2 (5), 12-17.
8. Allan, K. (2013). What is common ground? http://www.researchgate.net.
9. Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theorieis of humour. Berlin: Mouton de Grugter.
10. Bryne, R. (2004). Preference for SMS versus telephone calls in initiating romantic relationship. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 2(1), 1 – 14. http://www.journalsatabase.info/articles/preferences...
11. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech. A politics of the performative. London: Longman.
12. Cameron, D. (2003). Language and gender ideologies. In J. Holms & M. Meyerhoff (Eds), The handbook of language and gender. (pp. 447-467). Oxford: Blackwell.
13. Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity. You men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In S. Johnson & U. Meyerhoff (Eds.), Language and masculinity, (pp.205-280). Oxford: Blackwell. http://web.standord.edu/...interaction.html
14. Chiluwa, I. (2007). The “Nigerianness” of SMS text-message in English. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies Association, 13(1), 95-109.
15. Corduas, M., Attardo, S. & Eggleston, A. (2008). The distribution of humour is not random: A statistical analysis. Language and Literature, 17(3), 253-270.
16. Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage.
17. Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http:www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lanague-use.
18. ……………….. (2008). Texting: The gr8 dbt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Cupples, J & Thompson, L. (2020) Heterosexuality and digital foreplay. Feminist Media studies, 10(1): 1-17.
20. Dc Marchena, A. & Eigsti, I. (2015). The art of common ground: emergence of a complex pragmatic language skill in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child Language, 43 (1), 43-80. http:www.cbi.nim.nig.gov.
21. Dijk, C. V., Witteloostuijn, m. v., Vasic. N., & Avrutin, S. (2016). The influence of texting language on grammar and executive functions in primary school children. http:www.researchgate.net/publication.
22. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kecskes, I & Zhang, F. (2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In A. Capone, F. Piparo, M. Carapezza & S. Verlas (Eds). Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, 375-395. http://www.researcchgate.net/publication/299672105.
26. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper and Row.
27. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Essex: Longman.
28. Mgbemena, J. (2007). The language of GSM/SMS: Some Pedagogical implications. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies Association, 3(1), 110-120.
29. Michael, U. (2012). Short message service (SMS) as a variety of written English. AFRREV LALIGENS: An International Journal of Language, Literature and Gender Studies, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 1(3), 144-154. http://afrrevjo.net/?q=afrrevlaligens_home/archive.
30. Mooney, A., Peccei, J., Labelle, S., Henriksen, B., Eppler, E., Irwin, A., Pichler, P., Preece, S. & Soden, S. (2011). Language, society & power: An introduction. New York: Routledge.
31. Pichler, p. & Preece, S. (2011). Language and gender. In A. Mooney, J. Peccei, S. Labelle, B. Henriksen, E. Eppler, A. Irwin, P. Pichler, S. Preece & S. Soden (Eds), Language, Society & Power: An Introduction. (pp. 91-112). New York: Routledge.
32. Plotnicov, L. (1995). Love, lust and found in Nigeria. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic passion: A Universal Experience? (pp. 128-140). New York: Columbia University Press.
33. Prince, E. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.). Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223-56). New York: Academic Press.
34. Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge.
35. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presupposition. In M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger (Eds). Semantics and Philosophy. New York: University Press.
36. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701-21
37. Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. London: virago.
38. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. In k. Bolton, B. Kachru, (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics. (pp. 22-48). New York: Routledge.
39. Thurlow, C. & Brown, A. (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging. In Discourse Analysis Online. http://extra.shu.ac.daol/article/ul/a3/thurlow.
40. Thurlow, C. & Poff, M. (2009). The language of text messaging. In S.I. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.). Handbook of the Pragmatics of CMC, (pp.1-25). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
41. Verschueren, J. (2008). Context and structure in a theory of pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics, 10, 14-24.
42. Walton, M., Weatherall, A. & Jackson, S. (2002). Romance and friendship in pre-teen stories about conflicts: “we decided that boys are not worth it.” Discourse and Society, 13(5), 673- 689.