A PhD has just been completed looking at the language of txts. Interesting emphasis on pointlessness in the title of the article, though whether this is actually important in the PhD itself is unclear.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/5982272/SMS-Phd-pointless-text-messages-analysed.html
Why does pointlessness matter? It may be (or may not), as we have said before, that older users expect there to be an extrinsic purpose in electronic communication, whereas younger users do not. I don't know if this researcher looked at the age of the texters, but might be worth asking.
See that book I keep mentioning: Robin Dunbar, Grooming Gossip and the Evolution of Language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
One example of an almost 'pointless and waffly' text she analysed read: "Hi. I know you are at work but I just wanted you to know I found my pen lid."
I don't think this message is so pointless, it's basically saying that the sender is happy again, so the receiver doesn't need to worry.
It's a third level of intensionality: I suspect (1) that you worry (2) that I'm worried (3) about the lost pen lid.
Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language - great book! The number of 150 has been explained in more detail than in "The tipping point"...
I was telling my friends about Robin Dunbar's book. One friend said: yes, we humans differ from animals because we can 'love'. This made me think a bit. Is grooming just an extension of love? And where does fit 'humour' in this?
Post a Comment