Interpersonal Communication Analysis

Introduction

Interpersonal communication is vital to humans and is used in everyday situations. “Interpersonal communication refers to face-to-face communication between people” (35), according to West and Turner (2007), authors of Introducing Communication Theories. West and Turner explain that exploring how relationships form, the upholding and continuation of these relationships, and the end of relationships, are the main characteristics of interpersonal context. Interpersonal communication began as face-to-face communication between two people, but as technology advanced, it expanded to include new communicative technologies such as telephone calls, email, instant messaging, chats, social media networks, and text messaging. Text messaging
through cells phones, also known as texting or SMS (Short Message Service), is a form of interpersonal communication that can be represented through the Linear Model of Communication: A message is sent from a source to a receiver through a channel, which may be interrupted by some form of noise. Texts are person-to-person messages received from and sent to known individuals. Text messaging provides a one-to-one, personalized, and individuating social medium (Reid and Reid, 2007). The phenomena of text messaging, has researchers and scholars questioning whether this new communication technology adds or takes away from interpersonal communication and people’s learned communication skills.

Review of Literature

Texting as a New Phenomenon of Communication Everyday social arrangements and interpersonal contact are now routinely affected by mobile technology (Conti-Ramsden, Durkin, and Simkin, 2010). As opposed to 15 years ago, today’s youth have a greater variety of options to choose from when communicating with their peers. “Communication, via cell phone and the internet, are now widely available and very popular with the young” (Conti-Ramsden, Durkin, and Simkin, 2010, 197). The global cell phone market now stands at approximately 1.8 billion subscribers, and is estimated to reach 3 billion by the end of 2010, by which time nearly half of all human beings on the planet are expected to own and use a cell phone (Reid and Reid, 2007). A recent survey of 2,000 teenagers in the United States revealed that 80% of teens, or approximately 17 million young people, have a cell phone. 96% of those teens use the texting function, and of that 96%, 1 out of 10 teens say that they text for 45 minutes a day (Conti-Ramsden, Durkin, and Simkin, 2010). Over 900 billion messages were sent in 2005, with expectations that this will rise to more than two trillion messages in 2010 (Deumert and Masinyana, 2008). Text messaging has become a common means of keeping in constant touch with peers, especially among young people all over the world. The phenomenon of texting is continuing to increase, raising substantial awareness of the “new” texting language.
Researchers are proposing to treat electronic communication as a distinct mode of intermediate communication, in between the oral and the written medium (Fandrych, 2007). According to Ingrid Fandrych (2007), author of Electronic Communication and Technical Terminology, “Online conversation takes place on the written level, while using specific stylistic conventions which are very similar to oral communication, especially abbreviations of frequently used phrases and emoticons to replace facial expressions” (148). Fandrych (2007) claims that acronyms, blends, and clippings are responsible for the characteristic style of Internet English, and that offline usage is increasingly influenced by Internet usage (148). Some new and creative word formations have even found their way into everyday usage including the acronyms “btw” (by the way) and “ttyl” (talk to you later), as well as the blending of certain words like “all right” into “alright.” Fandrych (2007) predicts some changes in general (“off-line”) English due to texting language as well (151). People “talk” via text messages: using the keyboard, they make use of abbreviations, they omit non-content words, and they do not capitalize. Fandrych (2007) explains
that:
Electronic interlocutors replace contextual cues which would have been present in face-to-face communication with abbreviations and emoticons, which are, of course, consciously employed and sometimes intended to entertain, a feature which internet English shares with other jargons and in-group registers (151).

Electronic communication, as a medium, shares characteristics with the written language and the oral language. Letters and symbols are used through typing which are displayed on a screen, but at the same time, it is very informal and conversational which replaces the linguistic context with special cues that do not exist in the traditional written mode (Fandrych, 2007, 151). Text language is neither identical to speech nor writing, but adaptively features characteristics of both. Fandrych (2007) titles this electronic communication language as “Netspeak,” and categorizes it as a fourth medium alongside written, spoken, and sign language (152). Communication through text is informal and characterized by new elements. Fandrych (2007) concludes that the electronic medium can be considered to constitute a separate level, between the spoken and the written modes and overlapping, to some extent, with both of them (152). The new texting phenomenon not only creates a new form of language between oral and written mediums, but it also develops a globalized texting standard. English language texts produced by bilingual speakers share many of the features which have been reported for English SMS communication internationally, and provide evidence for what one might call a global English SMS standard (Deumert and Masinyana, 2008). English messages are strongly represented in all communicative functions of text messaging by bilingual individuals. Deumert and Masinyana (2008), co-authors of, The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS), study how English is combined with isiXhosa, one of the official languages of South Africa, in text messages between native South Africans. Deumert and Masinyana state that “The historical and continuing dominance of English on the world-wide-web has supported the popular belief that the language of electronic communication in general is English, and in some cases, English can replace a user’s first language in this medium” (123). In studies focusing on bilingual texting, most messages were written in English combined with the local language. Researchers concluded that there is the existence of a global English SMS norm because of brevity and speed, paralinguistic restrictions with the medium and local language, and the restriction of texting characters (Deumert and Masinyana, 2008). The phenomenon of texting has transformed individual’s lives by creating the possibility of being in constant communication at all times, as well as creating a tendency towards cross-cultural homogeny.

Texting as a Negative Form of Communication Although texting provides the opportunity for constant and immediate contact with others, it tends to have a displacing effect on face-to-face communication. Similar to face-to-face communication, texting allows for conversational turn-taking, but excludes intonations, emotions, and the ability to send long messages. Llana Gershon (2008), author of, Email my Heart: Remediation and Romantic Break-Ups, performed a study looking at how Americans are experiencing and using new technologies to end relationships. Gershon (2008) discusses, through the use of American college student’s break-up narratives, the ways in which certain social media create new possibilities for disconnecting with others (15). Although a break-up may be happening, an individual has the opportunity through text messaging to hold separate or multiple conversations simultaneously with the break-up. This takes away from the personal aspect of intimate relationships and tends to enforce the displacement of face-to-face communication. Teens especially use instant messaging and texting in particular as substitutes for face-to-face communication with people from their physical lives, therefore, feeling less psychologically close to their instant messaging and texting partners (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 2008). This may also damage the emotional quality of a relationship. Online interactions lack important features of face-to-face communication, such as gestures, eye contact, and body language, making them less rich than offline interactions (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 2008). Although texting is still communication, social anxiety and anti-social behaviors can be an effect of the lack face-to-face communication with teens today. “Reports in the press and surveys from parents find points of view that range from exuberant, discussing how socially-interactive technologies can save youth from social isolation and depression, to alarming, focusing on how constant use of these technologies fosters anti-social behavior” (Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, and Smallwood, 2006, 557). The reality is that texting and other forms of social technology lie between these two extremes. A recent survey revealed that cell phone owners declaring a generalized preference for texting on their cell phones were both lonelier and more anxious than those who preferred talking (Reid and Reid, 2007). People who have social anxiety will not come to terms with their fears without experiencing face-to-face communication and, as an effect, use texting as a divergent, to kill time or avoid some other activity. Texting allows users to disengage from the demands of immediate interactive involvement, releasing time and attentional resources to compose and edit messages (Reid and Reid, 2007). Although texting may be an outlet and a preferred mode of communication for people with anxiety problems, it also may give others a false sense of the persons’ real personality. Along with peers, there is a growing concern that adolescents’ extensive use of electronic communication to interact with their peers may impair their relations with their parents, siblings, and other family members (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 2008). Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (2008) show how peer relationships are being enhanced at the expense of family relationships in an example role of technology in modern family life: When the working spouse, usually the father, came through the door at the end of the day, the other spouse and children were often so absorbed in what they were doing that they greeted him only about one-third of the time, usually with an obligatory “hi.” About half the time, children ignored him and continued multitasking and monitoring their various electronic gadgets (135). Parents are having a much harder time breaking into their children’s world because of the distance and privacy established through text messaging. Teens are using cell phones to institute generational boundaries, such as screening calls from parents into voicemail, as well as undermining family rituals, such as mealtimes and vacations (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 2008). Cell phones give adolescents the power to control the people with whom they talk and have more room into which they can share thoughts freely and privately from their family members. The landmarks of the electronic transformation stage include greater teen autonomy, the decline of face-to-face communication, enhancement of peer group relations at the possible expense of family relations, and greater teen choice (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 2008). According to Raymond Williams (1997), author of Mobile Privatization, new technologies only serve to further aggravate the modern human condition of “mobile privatized social relations” (129). This seems to be a concern that is provoked further by new mobile communication technologies with people talking of “detached presence” (Lin and Tong, 2007). “Adolescent’s constant use of mobile communication can be seen as a symptom of a general loss of human connectivity in the modern condition” (Lin and Tong, 2007, 305).

Texting as a Positive Form of Communication Although many studies have shown the negative effects of text messaging, other research has shown that this new form of communication has positive aspects as well. Text messaging is a form of communication that has many uses: coordinating plans, multi-tasking, friendship maintenance, information, and romantic relationships. Text messages are convenient, immediate, less disturbing, and have no constraints. Since there are so many communicative functions, text messaging has become a common means of keeping in constant touch, especially among young people in many parts of the world today (Lin and Tong, 2007). Today’s youth use text messaging especially to keep in touch and maintain either close or distant relationships. Recent research studies have explored how text messaging can offer a sense of intimacy between friends as well as between strangers. This is especially appealing to youth because they can be bonded to all of their social networks through one device. “The virtual presence (or ‘absent presence’) of ‘persons elsewhere’ through mobile communication facilitates networking, deeper relationships, or simply increased contact. People who are physically far away can be brought into immediate cyber presence” (Lin and Tong, 2007, 305). Mobile texting allows people to be in constant social contact, which therefore gives them a sense of co-presence at all times. Lin and Tong (2007) explain that text messaging has created new kinds of modalities for co-presence and communication, which contributes to a sense of virtual intimacy (305).
Text messages, rather than standard telephone calls, allow for total individual communication; there is no chance of anyone overhearing the conversation and thus supports a sense of security and privacy. It is appealing because the text is expected to reach a specific person directly, no matter where they are or the time of day. This form of communication is very popular between adolescents and their peers because they feel as if they can communicate privately, not under the supervision of their parents. Teens travel between their homes, school and nearby places that are all under a high degree of regulation by adults. “Mobile text messaging has thus fulfilled an important function which provides a sense of co-presence for young people who lack the means to share some private physical space free from adults’ surveillance” (Lin and Tong, 2007, 306).
Because this form of communication is relatively free from adult supervision, teens often use texting to maintain romantic relationships as well as friendships. A study found that texting is used to negotiate “gender relations,” especially among couples (Lin and Tong, 2007). For instance, after a fight, couples may not want to directly speak to each other or hear one’s voice, but texting avoids the embarrassment of making romantic advances or even when saying ‘no’ to these advances. The informants of the study also expressed the fact that some messages are highly private and very meaningful, which can be saved and stored in the mobile device. Since the conversation remains private, even in public location ns, individuals tend to reveal more about their emotional selves through texts. Thus, youth text messaging end on an optimistic note about the positive uses of SMS by young people for gaining freedom from surveillance by adults and for negotiating subtle gender relations (Lin and Tong, 2007). Relationships can actually be strengthened through text messaging because of its convenience, intimacy, and privacy among users.
Another strength of text messaging is that it allows people to keep in touch with friends who are separated by physical boundaries. Although other forms of communication such as telephone, email, and written letters allow people separated by distance to keep in touch as well, texting allows both sender and receiver to keep in contact at both of their conveniences. The message is sent and received immediately regardless if the other person is “online.” It allows for multi-tasking while holding other conversations or tasks, and also is less disturbing, by far, than other forms of communication such as phone calls or face-to-face communication. While people may interact frequently in person with people who are in their lives every day, it may not be possible to meet other friends, family, or acquaintances face-to-face on a regular basis. To fill in-person communication gaps, people used text messaging to stay connected and make plans to meet when convenient (Quan-Haase, 2007). Text messaging is a more suitable fit to maintaining distance relationships as opposed to other forms of communication.
Aside from convenience, some people actually prefer text messaging because it gives them a chance to think about what they want to say, which is not always possible during face-to-face communication. “Text messaging gives people time to think about the wording of their messages, allowing them to be more informal and candid, even with close friends” (Reid and Reid, 2007, 425). Some people, due to SMS and other forms of text based communication, even develop an entirely separate, “brave SMS self,” which contrasts with their more reserved real-life personality (Reid and Reid, 2007). Text messaging can be used as an outlet to help expand communication and closeness with peers. For instance, in an essay that discusses the relationship between texting and social anxiety, Donna Reid and Fraser Reid (2007) write:
By delaying or eliminating the audience reactions that normally accompany real-time spoken interaction, SMS may offer anxious individuals a way of making social contact without fear of immediate disapproval or rejection, allowing attention to be refocused away from the observer’s perspective and towards the composition of messages that more effectively achieve self-presentational goals (425).

Interactive media, such as texting, allow people to individuate themselves, communicate with peers, and accomplish stages of intimate contact that they could not achieve in other interactional settings.

Research Questions

Texting helps maintain social relationships in modern society, and affords resources to achieve a sense of co-presence and intimacy with both existing friends and new acquaintances, while avoiding having to deal with face-to-face interaction or the intrusive disturbance of a phone call (Lin and Tong, 2007). Although texting may be a convenient source of communication that is direct, individualized, and private, it also may be taking away from the importance of face-to-face, interpersonal communication. If people are relying on a text based communication exchange, they are not experiencing or learning interactional conversations involving tonal inflection, reactions, and especially body language. Nonverbal communication is a big part of interpersonal communication because it shows the reaction of the individual after receiving the message, therefore giving the sender a form of feedback that strengthens the communication process. As technology continues to advance, there is rising concern that social, interactional, and communication skills of today’s youth and future generations will consequently decline. As a result, this study will address the following questions:

RQ1: Is texting taking away from or adding to interpersonal communication and individual’s learned communication skills?

RQ2: Will texting affect how children and adolescents communicate with one another?

RQ3: Do people rely on texting to fulfill their emotional, psychological, and other forms of needs as opposed to other types of communicative technology or face-to-face communication?

Resources

Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A.M.K. (2006). IMing, Text Messaging, and Adolescent Social Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/bryant.html.

Chakrabarti, D. (2008). Deconstructing SMS Language: A content Anaylsis of Valentine Day SMS Texts. Annals of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies, 975-85. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Conti-Ramsden, G., Durkin, K., & Simkin, Z. (2010). Language and Social Factors in the Use of Cell Phone Technology by Adolescents With and Without Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 53(1), 196-208. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Deumert, A., & Masinyana, S. (2008). Mobile language choices — The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS): Evidence from a bilingual South African sample. English World-Wide, 29(2), 117-147. doi:10.1075/eww.29.2.02deu.

Fandrych, I. (2007). Electronic Communication and Technical Terminology: A Rapprochement?. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication, 1(1), 147-158. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.\

Gershon, L.
(2008). Email my heart: remediation and romantic break-ups. Anthropology Today, 24(6), 13-15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2008.00627.x.

Hyo, K., Gwang Jae, K., Han Woo, P., & Rice, R. (2007). Configurations of Relationships in Different Media: FtF, Email, Instant Messenger, Mobile Phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1183-1207. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00369.x.

Jordan, A., & Comrie, M. (2006). Txt sux? Texting and other forms of communication in local government consultation. Communication Journal of New Zealand, 7(1), 1-20. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Lin, A., & Tong, A. (2007). Text-messaging Cultures of College Girls in Hong Kong: SMS as Resources for Achieving Intimacy and Gift-exchange with Multiple Functions. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 21(2), 303-315. doi:10.1080/10304310701278165.

Ling, R. (2008). Should We Be Concerned That the Elderly Don't Text?. Information Society, 24(5), 334-341. doi:10.1080/01972240802356125.

Maher, M. (2007). You've Got Messages: Modern Technology Recruiting Through Text-Messaging and the Intrusiveness of Facebook. Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law, 8(1), 125-151. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete
database.

Patrick, K., Raab, F., Adams, M., Dillon, L., Zabinski, M., Rock, C., et al. (2009). A Text Message-Based Intervention for Weight Loss: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(1), 2. doi:10.2196/jmir.1100.

Plester, B., Wood, C., & Bell, V. (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children's literacy attainment?. Literacy, 42(3), 137-144. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00489.x.

Quan-Haase, A. (2007). University Students' Local And Distant Social Ties: Using and integrating modes of communication on campus. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 671-693. doi:10.1080/13691180701658020.

Reid, D., & Reid, F. (2007). Text or Talk? Social Anxiety, Loneliness, and Divergent Preferences for Cell Phone Use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 424-435. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9936.

Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships. Future of Children, 18(1), 119-146. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

West, R. L., & Turner, L. H. (2007). Introducing communication theory: analysis and application (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, R. (1983) ‘Mobile Privatization,’ Reprinted in P. Gay, S. Hall, L. Janes, H. Mackay & K. Negus (1997) Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman, Sage, London.

(2008). Teens Who Text. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

(2007). TEXTING FAILS ROAD TESTS. Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 13. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

(2008). THE CELL PHONE ZONE. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 65(4), 382-383. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.