Sociolinguistics of Selected WhatsApp Interactions among … · 2019-10-21 · Sociolinguistics of Selected WhatsApp Interactions among Students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka 194

European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X / 1450-202X Vol. 148 No 1 December, 2017, pp. 193-208

http://www. europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com

Sociolinguistics of Selected WhatsApp Interactions among

Students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Omotosho Moses Melefa

Department of English and Literary Studies

University of Nigeria, Nsukka

E-mail: [email protected]

Thomas-Michael Emeka Chukwumezie

Corresponding Author, Department of English and Literary Studies


E-mail: [email protected]

Ezinne Immaculata Nwodo

Department of English and Literary Studies


Abstract

This study explores the sociolinguistics of selected WhatsApp chats amongst

students of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN). It discusses sociolinguistics variables

such as gender, age, class and educational background and how these shape the students’

WhatsApp chats. The study also investigates the styles and variations that are predominant

in the students’ WhatsApp chats. The study is motivated by the lack of scholarly insights

into the sociolinguistic features of the WhatsApp chats of the students of University of

Nigeria, Nsukka. Despite the growing number of studies on WhatsApp chats, the peculiar

sociocultural context of the chats of students of UNN has not been explored in the

literature. WhatsApp screenshots were collected from 50 students of the University,

comprising 25 female students and 25 male students. A total number of 1000 screenshots

were taken from the chats of the participants. The analysis of data was based on theoretical

insights from Interactional Sociolinguistics and Variationist Sociolinguistics postulated by

John Gumperz and William Labov respectively. The findings show that age, gender, class

and educational background are prominent sociolinguistic variables that characterise the

students’ chats. These variables also elicit variation in the language use of the students.

Keywords: Sociolinguistics, Code switching, Nigerian Pidgin, Emoticons, WhatsApp.

Introduction In today’s world, the concept of less-talking and more-texting is in vogue and rapidly changing the

lifestyle of people. Its influence is tremendous. It is not just texting through Short Message Service

(SMS), which is a service for sending text messages on a cellular telephone system. Interactive Web

Internet-based applications (social media) are the fastest and easiest ways of sending messages across a

number of people which can get to people in whatever part of the world. There are varieties of social

media but the major concern of this research is interactions on WhatsApp Messenger.

Sociolinguistics of Selected WhatsApp Interactions among Students of

University of Nigeria, Nsukka 194

WhatsApp Messenger is an application that allows the sending of text messages and voice calls,

as well as video calls, images and other media. This application (WhatsApp messenger) could be

accessed using a mobile phone or desktop. User could communicate with other users individually or in

a group of individual users. Studies show that WhatsApp Messenger is one of the cheapest social

media platforms. Therefore, majority of students have access to this application in their smart phones.

Also WhatsApp Messenger gives room for preplanning. The user can pause to think while writing a

reply to a message and also checking what he/she has written before sending to other users.

Students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) operate under a multilingual environment

which makes the students to devise a means of communication (language) peculiar to them. The

students manipulate languages to express themselves which leads them to code switch or use Nigerian

Pidgin in their communication. In the course of this study, the student’s preference or choice of one

language over another will be examined. Their creative activities of creating new words or simplified

spellings, and the use of coinages for specific purposes like to drive home the mood, intention, and the

personality of the user.

Coulmas (1998, p.2) explains that “ sociolinguistics investigates how social structure influences

the way people talk and how language varieties and patterns of use correlate with social attributes such

as class, sex, age.” This study shows how these social attributes (class, sex, age) create social

differences in the students’ chats. Studies show that males may have more of football registers in their

chats while the females might have more of fashion registers. In addition, some works reveal that there

is high tendency that the males deviate from the linguistics norms more than the females. Also, the

social class each student belongs to influences their chats. Students from rich or well to do families

might use less of Nigerian Pidgin and may not code switch often in their chats compared to those from

average homes. This might be as a result of their educational or social background. However, language

used on the internet is not always conventional but mostly governed by situational factors; depending

on who one is talking to and the subject of discussion in a particular period of time. This research will

discuss the language use (style) of the students of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka in their WhatsApp

chats and how this is shaped by certain sociolinguistic variables.

2. Statement of the Problem Crystal (2004, p.55) explains that:

There is a widely held intuition that some sort of “Netspeak” exists --- a type of

language displaying features that are unique to the internet, and encountered in all above

situations, arising out of its character as a medium which is electronic , global and

interactive.

This means that the deployment of language in the internet context is quite different from what

is written or spoken outside the internet. Language use in this context is unique because of the

constraining factors within the context. This language when used elsewhere or in a different speech

community might sound strange to some.

Many studies have been carried out on the language of the internet and the student’s use of

WhatsApp in their day to day interactions. However, such studies have not captured the sociocultural

nuances that characterise WhattApp chats of the students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Since

language use is believed to be influenced by sociocultural constraints, a study that accounts for the

nuanced deployment of language by the students of UNN is, therefore, necessary. Using insights from

interactional sociolinguistics and variationist sociolinguistics postulated by John Gumperz and William

Labov respectively, this is the gap that this study attempts to fill. Gumperz was interested in how the

195 Omotosho Moses Melefa, Thomas-Michael Emeka Chukwumezie and Ezinne Immaculata Nwodo

order of situations and the culture of the interlocutors affect how they make conversational inferences

and interpret verbal and non-verbal signs.

3. Aim and Objectives The aim of this study is to analyse the sociolinguistics of selected WhatsApp interactions amongst

students of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The specific objectives of this study are:

i. To describe various sociolinguistics variables that shape students’ WhatsApp chats.

ii. To discuss the styles and variations in the WhatsApp chats which characterise the chats of the

students and how social structures influence the language use of the students

4. Research Questions i. What are the various sociolinguistic variables that shape students’ WhatsApp chats?

ii. What variation and styles exist in the WhatsApp chats of the students and how do social

structures influence the language use of these students?

5. Previous Studies Many scholars have written about trends in digital communication and the impact which the internet

has on language. Also, there are many studies on students’ use of WhatsApp chats and the emerging

language used on WhatsApp. Crystal (2004) believes that the restricted number of characters in a

message was the main trigger that motivated the formation of a new language in communication. He

calls this phenomenon linguistic revolution. Some scholars are interested in this new language of the

cyberspace (internet), while some scholars worry about the negative effects of this on society.

Elsayed (2014) investigates students’ frequent code-switching in their WhatsApp chats. Using

the sequential approach introduced by Auer (1984), this research focuses on Kuwaiti High School

students. He argues that social background is a key factor that affects the construction of the speaker’s

utterance. Data for the study was collected from four WhatsApp groups which were created by the

researcher. It explores the language used in these messages and the functionality of code-switching in

WhatsApp communication. The study reveals that code-switching is not an arbitrary linguistic

behaviour and that individuals make varying choices of linguistic usage at the levels of graphology,

morphology and syntax. He identifies reiteration and linguistic repair as core functions of code

switching. The current research is necessary despite Elsayed’s research because it focuses on a

different socio-cultural context.

Zakariyah’s (2017) “A Graphological Appraisal of the Social Media Language of Students of

Selected Higher Institution in Kwara State, Nigeria” examines the variability of linguistic choices of

students in a technology-based interactive platform –social media. The researcher extracts his data

from two WhatsApp groups- Economics Class of 2017, University of Ilorin, Malete and 200L ABEN,

Kwara State University. The data is obtained from the different groups on WhatsApp.

The researcher’s approach to the study is stylistic as the work focuses on the graphological

features in the students’ WhatsApp chats. Leech and Short’s notion of stylistic pluralism was adopted

as the theoretical framework for this study. Leech’s model of style allows for 3 distinct levels

(semantic, syntactic, graphological) at which stylistic choices can be examined. Some graphological

features that characterise the students’ WhatsApp chats such as innovative spelling, punctuation and

capitalization, employment of low case letters instead of upper case, contracted forms and emoticons

were identified. Also, the use of onomatopoeic spellings for various functions such as dissatisfaction

(ahh), and for gaining attention (hey) and for expressing excessive laughter (hahahahaha,

kikikikikikiki), etc. This research is different from the current study because it examines the styles the



students employ in their WhatsApp chats while this current study focuses on the sociolinguistic

variables that define the WhatsApp chats of students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

In “A Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis Study of WhatsApp Messenger’s Semantic

Notifications, Al-Khawaldeh, Bani-Khair, Mashagba and Huneety (2016) investigate WhatsApp

semantic notifications of Jordanians. The study explains the differences in the language use of

Jordanians in WhatsApp notifications in relation to gender and also reveals socio-cultural values that

affect the way users make certain language choices in these online notifications. It also describes the

simplicity of the language used in the status notification in terms of structure.

Using compiled written status notifications from 300 WhatsApp users and analysed them using

critical discourse analysis, it was observed that the students don’t usually make use of the already

designed WhatsApp status such as; “I am at work”, “available”, “busy” because they use their

WhatsApp status to generate and preserve a detailed personal profile reflections and representations for

others in their social network to view.

Otemuyiwa’s (2017) “A Linguistic Analysis of WhatsApp Conversation among

Undergraduates Students of Joseph Ayo Babalola University” discusses WhatsApp conversations

among undergraduate students of Joseph Ayo Babalola University. The study finds that each smiley

the students use in their chats has semiotic implication and that each smiley signifies something which

may also be said in words. The researcher opines that students put in their identities in their chats and

that their conversation is typical of a particular set of people. The study equally submits that the nature

of speech events reflects the intentionality of language use on this social media platform.

Al-Smadi (2017) investigates gender and age patterns on WhatsApp statuses of Jordanians from

sociolinguistic perspective. The study utilised 400 statuses from 400 Jordanians who have WhatsApp

accounts as data. He divided these statuses into two groups. The first group consists of people who are

30yrs and above while the other group has people who are below 30yrs of age. The data was similarly

grouped into two for gender as a variable. Social network model propounded by Milroy and Milroy

(1978) was used as the theoretical framework for the study.

The study submits that gender and age have important impacts on the statuses of the

participants. He explains further that the religious statuses are the most frequently used topic among

female Jordanians, whereas the males use social statuses more often. He observes that those male

Jordanians who are above 30 years old use fixed statuses suggested by the mobile device itself, while

the females who are above 30 years old use fixed statuses that are more dramatic compared to females

who are under 30yrs old. Also the fixed statuses are the second frequently used topic by the females

who are above 30years old whereas they are the third frequently used topics by females who are under

30yrs old. Moreover age has an essential impact on the topics impact on the topic being discussed.

However the difference between these two age groups is in the use of the fixed statuses suggested by

the mobile itself. While Al-smadi’s research examines the WhatsApp statuses of Jordanians in relation

to their age, gender and topic, the current study examines the WhatsApp chats of UNN students to

establish how sociocultural context could shape certain linguistic behaviour.

6. Method The population of this study comprises 50 students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka. This number was

evenly distributed into 25 male students and 25 female students. These 50 students were purposively

selected from different departments, level of study and different faculties in order to cater for students

from different social background. Purposive data collection method was used to sample phone

screenshots of the students’ WhatsApp chats. From each student, 20 screenshots were collected. These

20 screenshots comprise 10 screenshots of chats with same sex, 10 screenshots of chats with opposite

sex. A total number of 1000 screenshots were collected.


The data collected was subjected to qualitative data analysis to identify the sociolinguistics

variables that feature in the WhatsApp chats and these were discussed using insights from William

Labov’s variationist sociolinguistics and John Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistic approach.

Sociolinguistics variables in the chats such as sex, age, class, and educational background were

identified and analysed. How the students’ gender feature in their chats were identified using extracted

notes from the WhatsApp chats collected. The students’ educational background, age and class that

feature in their chats were also described using Labov’s variotionist sociolinguistics and Gumperz’s

Interactional Sociolinguistic approach. Predominantly, the students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka

function within a multilingual context and this sociolinguistic structure influences their language use in

the chats. The various styles that feature in their chats were also identified and discussed.

7. Theoretical Framework This study is anchored on William Labov’s Variationist sociolinguistics and Gumperz’s Interactional

sociolinguistics. These two are discussed below:

7.1. Variationist Sociolinguistics

Labov (1982) explains sociolinguistics in terms of language change and variation. Variationist

sociolinguistics, according to Labov, is the study of the way language varies and changes in

communities of speakers owing to the interaction of social factors (speakers’ gender, ethnicity, age,

degree of integration in their community and linguistic structures). William Labov started his research

in Martha’s Vineyard (an Island off the North-east coast of the United States) investigating language

use. His seminal investigations were based on principles and methods which led to insights which are

generally accepted today. One of Labov’s assumptions is that linguistic variation is socially

determined. He believes that speakers show identification with their locality through the use of a local

variety of language. He claims that language users aspire to social acceptability and, hence, in their

speech they move toward the standard of their area.

This research uses recordings of informal conversation as its data. One of the most important

contributions of Labov in his variationist studies was his ability to account for the relationship between

language variation and sociolinguistic variables such as sex, ethnicity, social class and social networks.

Variationist studies have further shown how investigating this socially patterned variation can

illuminate mechanisms of linguistic change. Variationist sociolinguistics is said to integrate social and

linguistic aspects of language. Sociolinguists are interested in lexical variations, and how different

words are used to refer to the same thing in different places. Here the choices speakers make among the

alternative linguistic means to communicate the same information usually conveys important

information about the speaker’s age, gender, class and ethnicity.

However, Georgieva (2014), in her Introducing Sociolinguistics (77), explains that there is one

question that variationist studies are yet to answer. She is of the opinion that variationist studies could

not answer satisfactorily how systematic and accountable we can consider the social groupings claimed

to correlate with specific patterns of language variation. According to Labov, the most important step

in sociolinguistic investigation is the correct analysis of the linguistic variable. Every variable should

be put into account looking at the forms with which such features vary in all contexts. It is left as the

task of the researcher to determine the variability of the context. To do this, the researcher will identify

the total population of utterances in which the feature varies, excluding contexts where one variant is

categorical. The researcher will also identify all the subcategories which would reasonably be relevant

in determining the frequency of each form. This shows that variation analysts are not interested in

individual occurrences of linguistic features but they emphasise the systematic study of the recurrent

choices an individual makes.



7.2. Interactional Sociolinguistics

Interactional sociolinguistics (IS) is believed to have emerged as a result of Gumperz efforts to develop

a general theory of language and society. The key features of Gumperzian interactional

sociolinguistics, according to Maria Georgieva, is its emphasis on the notion of “interference” and

“contextualization” as well as the centrality of intensive analysis of recorded interaction. IS basically

operates from the understanding that when people talk they are unable to say everything they mean

explicitly enough. As a result, one cannot simply rely on the words that are used to appreciate what is

meant in an interaction, but must also depend on background knowledge to discover what others

assumed the relevant context was for producing words. In all, interactional sociolinguistics holds that

because of the incompleteness of talk, all language users must rely on extra communicative knowledge

to infer, that is, to make hypotheses about how what is said relates to the situation at hand and what a

speaker possibly intends to convey by saying it.

Gumperz (1982) explains that interactional sociolinguistics in principle tries to describe how

meaningful contexts are implied via talk, how and if those talks are picked up by other people in the

conversation and how the production and reception of talk influences subsequent interactions. IS also

looks at how speakers make meaningful contexts by using only a limited but suggestive set of tools.

One of the most important contribution of IS to the study of language and social interaction is its

finding that interactants employ many other signalling channels than words to make aspects of contexts

available. These channels are used in co-occurrence with words and can be vocal like code switch,

gestures, style-shifts, etc. which are called contextual cues that help put the talk in context.

Interactional sociolinguistics, according to Erving Goffman, provides a sociological framework

for describing and understanding the form and meaning of the social and interpersonal context that

provide presupposition for the interpretation of meaning. He argues that all interactive activity is

socially organized at multiple levels. This means that all utterances are situated within contexts such as

“occasions,” “situation,” or “encounters” that provide structure and meaning to what is said. Gumperz

suggests that analysts should focus on the strategies that govern the speaker’s use of lexical,

grammatical, sociolinguistics and other knowledge in the production and interpretation of messages in

context.

This theoretical background helps in providing the analytical tool for discussing the influence

of social structure on the linguistic structure of the students WhatsApp chats, showing how the

student’s social background, gender, ethnicity, social context, social class influence their language use

in their chats.

8. Data Analysis and Discussion Sociolinguistic variables that manifest in the chats of the participants include gender, class, age and

educational background. These were identified from the analysis of the choice of words used by the

students in their WhatsApp chats. As the chats of the students with their friends and classmates were

analysed, the sociolinguistic variables that manifest in them are discussed as follows:

8.1. Gender

There were differences in the representation of gender in the chats between male and female students.

The chats between two male students were observed to be different from the chats between two female

students. These differences were evident in their choice of words and the themes of their chats. Also,

the chats between participants of the opposite sex had more soothing words, especially when the

interaction is between two lovers or those who were trying to woo would-be lovers. Interactions

between close friends were characterised by lexical items that show familiarity and humorous

sensibilities. These dimensions are captured in the screenshots of the chats below:


Screenshot 1

In the above chats, the discussants are evidently two female students. Their discussion centres

on “weavon” (hair extension). From this line of discussion, the gender of the discussants is revealed

from their choice of words and thematic concerns. Within the sociocultural context of the participants,

a male student would not normally be making enquiries about hair extension unless he wants to get it

for a female friend or relation and the reason for making enquiries about a female hair extension would

have been mentioned in the chat if it were to be a male student.

Screenshot 2

In the previous chat about the two female students in Screenshot 1above, English is used as the

medium of interaction compared to Screenshot 2 and 3 where Nigerian Pidgin is deployed. In the first

screenshot, there was a brief football club discussion, which is a discussion common among male

students of the university. And the first participant referred to the second participant as a “good boy”.

With this kind of portrayal, we understand that the discussion is between two male students of the

University. In the second screenshot, the first discussant referred to the second participant as “baba”,

which is a Yoruba name for father. This is an address term for males only. The reply, “yes boss”, gives



substance to the masculine identity of the participants. The words deployed in these conversations

revealed the gender identity of the personalities of the interactants.

Screenshot 3

The above chats captured interaction between two lovers. It is obvious that this is a

conversation between two who are in love with each other. There are love emoticons in the chat (in

form of a flower, heart and blushing face) which give credence to this claim. The first interactant seems

to be a male student. He refers to the second conversant as “beautiful” and “beaut” while the other

participant (female) sends a blushing emoticon to her partner on hearing that he wished he was with

her the previous night. Their choice of words is soothing and the general outlook of their chats is calm,

portraying people who are in love. The parting words, “I love you”, and their agreement of going out

on a date in the evening showed that the interactions happened between two lovers.

There is distinction in the chats from the line of gender categories of male to male chats, female

to female chats and male to female chats. In the male to male chats, there is more of the featuring of

Nigerian Pidgin and discussions about football clubs. While in the female chat above, there is

discussion about hair extension and English is firmly used. The last chats, which were between a male


and a female student, contained some emotional notes where they bought express their care and love

for each other. The choice of words also revealed this emotional undertone of the chats.

8.2. Age

The university students are mainly youths between the ages 15years and above. The linguistic features

found in their chats showcased their youthfulness. To demonstrate their youthfulness, the students

addressed one another as ‘baby’, ‘hello guy’, ‘whatsup’, ‘hey’, etc. Some of them used foul language

in their chats and tend to discuss more about the opposite sex. Most of the students employ emoticons

or facial expressions to show how they feel at a particular time.

Screenshot 4

These chats above were between two friends, obviously two female students who were

discussing about a certain man (the first discussant’s boyfriend). Discussions about love and opposite

sex are common among youths, especially university students. The introductory chat, “hi” and the

replied, “hey b” are common lines of discussion among the youth. There are abbreviations in these

chats like “LOML” which stands for “Love of my life”, “OMG” which stands for Oh My God, WCW

stands for Woman Crush Wednesday which is also a slang used for appreciating a female friend. There

is also MCM (man crush Monday) used by females for appreciating a male friend. Also, TBH stands

for “to be honest.” There is the use of vulgar expressions like WTF as in What the Fuck! ASF as in as

Fuck! The use of these expressions characterises the students’ chats and showcases their youthfulness

and dynamism. These features would usually not be found in the chats of the elderly population.

There is also a recurrent use of ‘unnecessary’ punctuation marks in chats of the participants

either for emphasis, to draw special attention to an idea or for humour. These punctuation marks signal

dynamism and innovativeness that is peculiar to the youthful population. Screenshot 5 aptly contains

mannerisms that are peculiar to the age category of the participants in the interaction.



Screenshot 5

In the chats above, the use of so many punctuation marks either doubled or tripled or more in a

sentence is consistent. These punctuation marks are used to show pauses or used for reprimanding

someone or making a request.

The use of slang expressions is another sociolinguistic index which reveals a person’s age. The

deployment of slang is a trend that is common among young people and generally not used by older

people. The students use some slangy expressions like “fuck”, a common profanity in English which

means to engage in sexual intercourse, in senses that are different from its surface denotation. In the

context of their interactions, these are used for exclamation, or to refer to acts of violence or error such

as ‘what the fuck is wrong with you!’

8.3. Class and Educational Background

The students of the University come from different social background and class; while some are well-

to-do, others are averagely okay and some are poor. These kinds of dimensions and social

stratifications manifest in the chats of the students. The language use of students from well-to-do

homes is influenced by the entire gamut of the environments where they were raised. Their

sociocultural experiences are shaped by the environments where they were raised. The experiences of

students from poor homes are also shaped by the sociocultural environments that produced them.

Those from well-to-do homes tend to be elitist in their language use and also stick more to the Standard

English than those from poor homes. The demotic form of English (Broken English) and Nigerian

Pidgin are hardly used by those from rich homes. It is commonplace in Nigeria for those from poor or

average families to be fluent in Nigerian Pidgin and use same intermittently in their interactions. But

this is usually not common among students from rich homes. These lines of distinction are clearly

evident in the chats captured in the screenshots below:


Screenshot 6

Screenshot 7



In Screenshot 6, it is evident that interactants stuck to the Standard English consistently and

sustained their interactions in it. In Screenshot 7, the first discussant used Igbo language exclamation

for pity, “chai and eyahh” to express emotions of pity and concern. Within the sociocultural Nigerian

context, these are linguistic behaviours that are peculiar poor or average Nigerian homes. Although the

participant has the capacity to sustain conversation in English, which is evident in what follows: “was

your day stressful?”, but he has chosen to use Nigerian Pidgin. This means that this participant belongs

to the class of common Nigerians because Nigerian Pidgin is not popular with the aristocratic Nigerian

family.

8.2. Styles and Variations in the Whats App Chats

There is no strict conventional language use on the internet. The internet can be said to be a ‘home’ to

all linguistic styles within a language. It provides opportunity for various language styles provided that

language can drive home what the language user has in mind. The students neologise a lot and use

different typing styles. There is the use of simplified spellings, onomatopoeic spellings, and some spell

words base on how they pronounce it.

8.2.1. Simplified Spellings

The students use a lot of simplified spellings in their chats. It is a way of shortening words to make

typing of messages easier for them and to work within the ambit of restrictions that the platform

imposes. Extracts of simplified spellings include those below:

LMAO--------- laugh my ass out

LOL------------ laugh out lord

B4 -------------- before

U--------------------- You

Tnx or 10x ----------------- thanks

C U --------------------------- see you

Aw---------------------------- how

4--------------------------------- For

4rm ------------------------------ from

Skul ----------------------------- school

Cum ---------------------------- come

Dis ------------------------------this

Dat or da --------------------------- that

Screenshot 8

In the chats above, the interactants shortened and simplified so many words. In the above chats,

the first discussant tells the other participant that there was no money; so, the other discussant

employed a crying emoji to respond to the situation. The other discussant shortened the following

words: “jst” for just, “ur” for your, “b” for be, “wt” for what, “happnd” for happened, “r” for are, “u”


for you, “wil” for will, “hv” for have, “wen” for when, “c” for see, “kk” for okay, “afta” for after,

“goin” for going, “hwfar” for how far.

8.2.2 Onomatopoeic Spellings

Onomatopoeic spellings are found in the students’ chats to perform various functions such as

expressing dissatisfaction (ahhhh), gaining attention (heeyy), indicating excessive laughter

(hahahahahaaha, kikikikikiki). There are also spellings such as “hmmmmm” and “emmmmm” used for

sighing and pondering. These are seen in the chats below:

Screenshot 9

Screenshot 9 above contains the use of onomatopoeic spellings which were deployed by the

participants. These include: “heey”, “ahhh”, “heheehe’’, “pheeeww”, “awwwn”, “haaaaa”, hahahahaha

and kikikikikik to express various emotions.

8.2.3 Code Switching / Code Mixing

Studies have shown that the choice of a particular code in multilingual communities is predominantly

determined by social factors: situation, location, formality, sex, status, intimacy, seriousness and type

of activity. Georgieva defines code switching as a situation where a language user transits from one

language to another. Code mixing, on the other hand, is a language contact phenomenon that reflects

the grammars of both languages working simultaneously. Here, words are borrowed from one language

and adapted to the other language. Code switching and mixing are phenomena that relate to the

contexts of bilingualism and multilingualism. The chats of the students are replete with code switching

and mixing.



Screenshot 10

Screenshot 11

36


The chats above are between two male students. The chats in Screenshot 10 contain an instance

of code switching and the use of Nigerian Pidgin. Screenshot 11, which contains chats between female

students, have instances of both code mixing and code switching from English to Yoruba and from

English to Igbo. The data shows that female students code switch more than male students. From the

styles and variations that manifest in the students chats, one gets insights into the students’ tribe and

the environments where they were raised.

9. Conclusion This study has explored the sociolinguistics of selected WhatsApp interactions amongst students of

UNN. Using certain sociolinguistic variables such as gender, age, class and educational background,

we have discussed how sociocultural background influence people’s linguistic behaviour. It was

observed that the gender of the interactants influences the topic and the choice of words in a particular

chat. Age is another variable that influences the choice of words used in a chat by interactants studied.

The students, being youthful, were more inclined to the use of slangy expressions, abbreviations and

peculiar punctuation marks to demonstrate their youthfulness and capacity for innovativeness. In the

data collected, it was also observed that the male students use more of Nigerian Pidgin in their chats

than the female students. The female students were sparing in their use of Nigerian Pidgin. They used

Standard English forms more than the male students. Instances of code switching were more in the

chats of the female students than the male students.

The data revealed instances of innovation and creativity in the chats of the students. The

students neologised and invented spellings to suit the way the neologisms were pronounced.

Neologised forms include “I dunno”, which stands for “I don’t know”, “owk”, which stands for

“okay.” There was also the use of onomatopoeic spellings where words are spelt to imitate natural

sounds and noises such as “hahahahaha”, “hmmmmm”, etc. There were cases of excessive use of

punctuation marks found predominantly in the data. It was discovered that the students employed

punctuation marks for purposes that are different from the norms of popular usage. For instance, they

used them to reprimand, to make request and to create a sense of humour or surprise.

From our observation of sociolinguistic variables such as gender, age, class, and educational

background, it was observed that language use by both genders is distinguishable. It was discovered

that male students use Nigerian Pidgin more than the female students, while the female students code

switch more than the male students. The two genders use smileys or emoticons based on individual

choices. It was discovered that language use reveals the social and cultural identities of the users.

References [1] Al- Khawaldeh, N., Bani-Khair, B., Mashagba, B., and Huneety, A. (2016). A Corpus-Based

Discourse Analysis Study of WhatsApp Messenger’s Semantic otification. International Journal

of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. Vol. 5:6, 158-165.

[2] Al-Smadi, A. M. (2017). Gender and Age Patterns on WhatsApp Statuses as used by

Jordanians: a Sociolinguistic Perspective. International Journal of English Linguistics. Vol.7:

4, 56-66.

[3] Aries, E. (1996). Men and Women Interaction: Reconsidering the differences. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

[4] Auer, P. (1999). From Code-switching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects: Toward a

Dynamic Typology of Bilingual Speech. International Journal of Bilingualism. Vol. 3:4. 309-

32.

[5] Awadallah, M. (2011). Identifying Roles in Social Networks Using Linguistic Analysis. An

unpublished PhD Dissertation,The University of Michigan .

[6] Carmen, L. et al, (ed).(2007) The Rouledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. Routlegde.



[7] Chambers, J. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory. Blackwell.

[8] Coulmas, F. (ed). (2004) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Reference Online, 1998

[9] Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[10] Elsayed, A. S. A. (2014). Codeswitching in WhatsApp Messages among Kuwaiti High School

Students. 2014. http://www.researchgate.new. Accessed 26 March, 2017

[11] Georgieva, M. (2014). Introducing Sociolinguistics. St. Kilment Ohridski University of Sofia.

[12] Gumperz, J. (1982). Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 2: Language and Social Identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[13] Labov, W. (1982). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

[14] Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Philadelphia Press.

[15] Mayerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. N.Y: Routledge.

[16] Oha, Anthony et al. (2014). Introduction to Sociolinguistics. ENG 355: Introduction to

sociolinguistics, National Open University of Nigeria, Lagos, 2014. Lecture Notes.

[17] Otemuyiwa, A. A. A (2017). Linguistic Analysis of WhatsApp Conversion Among

Undergraduate tudents of Joseph Ayo Babalola University. Scholink.org. Accessed 15 Feb.

2017

[18] Trudgill, P. (1984). Applied Sociolinguistics. Academic Press.

[19] Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 4th

ed. Penguin

Books.

[20] Zakariyah, M. (2017). A Graphological Appraisal of the Social Media Language of students in

Selected Higher Institutions in Kwara. The Achievers Journal, theachieversjournal.com.

Accessed 15 March, 2017.

Documents

Sociolinguistics of Selected WhatsApp Interactions among … · 2019-10-21 · Sociolinguistics of Selected WhatsApp Interactions among Students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka 194