Log 2

Today, I began looking at the text messages of Student 1 when I realized that it was much more difficult to analyze their text messages without their input. I felt like I was imposing my own thoughts and opinions on the student’s text messages without knowing their intentions behind the words or punctuation they chose to use. After speaking to Bettina, we both agreed that collecting screenshots of millennials’ text messages may be difficult. Thus, we figured it would be much more effective for us to conduct interviews with students about their texting language on SMS. Bettina and I came up with 10 standard questions that we could ask students. The questions are as follows:

Interview questions

• • 1. What messaging platform do you predominantly to communicate with people?
    2. Do you use proper punctuation in your messages? Why?
    3. How do you express tone in your messages?
    4. How do you express emotion in your messages?
    5. What is your opinion on ending punctuations in messages?
    6. Does your style of messaging change depending on the person you are talking to?
    7. Do you incorporate visual in your messages? Why or why not?
    8. If you do use visuals, could you provide us examples (memes, GIFS, emoji’s)?
    9. What’s the difference between using a visual in your messages versus using text?
    10. Are there unwritten rules that you adhere to when it comes to sending messages?

We hope to interview students for a maximum of 30 students about the linguistic choices they make when using SMS. Another concern that Bettina and I had about our final project was obtaining a random sample of interviewees. We needed to get away from the realm of friends, so we thought it would be best if we still used the students in Professor Greene’s Sociology 3010 as well as students in Professor Lopez’s senior seminar. We also plan on reaching out to the Visual Arts senior studio class because we wanted to set some limits to our sample: graduating seniors. I think limiting our interviews to graduating seniors would help our sample size be more consistent, especially if we have the chance to talk to all the students in both sociology seminars.

I’ve conducted some preliminary independent research and found several research articles that studies text communication amongst millennials. In “Are emojis creating a new or old visual language for new generations? A socio-semiotic study,” Hamza Alshenqeeti talks specifically about the creation and use of emojis as a “visual language.”[1] The author begins by discussing the evolution of the emoji from its previous form, the emoticon. Emoticons emerged in the late 1990s and required the individual to create emoticons using symbols on their keyboard. For example, placing < and 3 next to each other makes a heart emoticon (<3). Unlike emoticons, emojis are accessible as a separate keyboard on most mobile devices and computers. According to the article, the use of emojis may not be a new phenomenon. If we look back at cave paintings and the “Egyptian hieroglyph system of communication,” language was based on visuals.[2] Although Bettina and I are not looking at the evolution of language, it will be interesting to consider the shift from text to visuals in millennials’ language on SMS. I can’t help but think about Masters of Craft after reading Alshenqeeti’s article. It reminds me of millennials’ desire to return to authenticity. Do millennials’ use visuals in order to compensate for the lack of emotion, nuance, and tone in messages that are solely texts? Is this millennials’ effort to express authentic or genuine emotions?

Moving forward, we will schedule interviews with the students that we already have text messages from (Students 1, 2, and 3 from Log #1). In addition, we will send out a revised email to students in Sociology 3010 and ask students in Senior Studio (VART 3902) for their participation.

[1] Alshenqeeti, Hamza. “Are emojis creating a new or old visual language for new generations? A socio-semiotic study.” Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7, no. 6 (2016): 56-69.

[2] Ibid., 57.