Male and Female Register in CMC
Marschall Eirence Metekohy
Satya Wacana Christian University
Abstract
The different social values men and women hold lead to the different ways men and women communicate in the society. Studies suggest that female register (Lakoff, 1973) is different from male register (Karlsson, 2007). Halliday (1998) proposes that a register is determined by the Tenor, Field, and Mode of the interactions. Furthermore, human communication has evolved since the era of the internet and Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has become a new mode in communication. Therefore since language is dynamic, the language used by men and women might evolve as well. This study was aimed at investigating the male and female register in CMC. In the attempt to accomplish the objective of occurrences of cross-gender register. This study suggested that due to the different nature of CMC communication, the features of male and female register might be different from the Lakoff‟s (1973) hypothesis.
Keywords: Male Register, Female Register, CMC
Introduction
Men and women are two genders of human being which have massive differences. Both men and women have masculinity and femininity. According to Connell‟s (1995), as cited in Eckert
and femininity have impacts on how men and women communicate in their daily life which unconsciously take a massive part in the language use. Thus, there could be misunderstanding and miscommunication in a conversation between men and women which caused by the masculinity and femininity.
The miscommunication and misunderstanding is a common thing between men and women in a conversation, because of the factors mentioned above which cause the differences in language use. Thus, the meanings sometimes are not delivered to the receiver. These differences are summarized by Lakoff (1973, as cited in Crosby and Nyquist, 1977) that males‟ language considered more adult and assertive, while females‟ language is hyper-polite and commonly non-assertive. Leaper and Robnett (2011) further adds that women tend to use tentative language. Tentative language is language that does not make absolute certainties. These differences may be interpreted by the opposite sex in unintended ways. For better communication, Gray (1992) argues that women and men must understand these differences and learn to communicate as Martian and Venusian.
Furthermore, the differences in language used might be caused by the society, the surroundings they belong to. Correspondingly, another factor which may cause the language used by both men and women is the social status, such as the roles they hold in their society. Men communicate in an assertive manner because they hold the dominant position in the social hierarchy. In contrast, women communicate in a more tentative and polite manner because they occupy the subordinate position in the social hierarchy” (Lakoff, 1973, as cited in Leaper and
Since the era of the internet, communication not only occurs in Face to Face Communication (FtF), but also in online communication. The existence of the internet since the era of 1990‟s, has become a medium for communication. Moreover, along with the technology
developing nowadays, people can communicate anywhere and anytime as there are gadgets which provide access to online communication. The use of Internet for daily communication has argued that the development and spread of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and will continue to shape our language use (Van Gass, 2008). CMC is considered as a new mode in communication, incorporating the features of both speaking and writing.
This study explored gender and language use in first language in CMC environment. As the technology has developed and a new mode of communication has evolved. The way males and females communicate might have also evolved. Hence, this research was conducted to find out how females and males use language in Computer-mediated Communication (CMC). The research question for this study was, “What are the male and female register in CMC?”
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Register
Language is an emotion produced inside the brain and has three supporting components which similar to how sensory nerve, motor nerve and intermediate nerve work by taking an important part in seeding, receiving, and delivering the message to each other and believed as the greatest achievements ever invented of all time since the era of Greece‟s great philosophers. In
the speaker and the message received by the listener are mixed up (Searle, 1969). Also one of the factors which make the message received becomes blurred is the dilemma between the thought of “did he say what he/she means?”
The variety of language chosen in a making a conversation also called as register. Thus, a register also used for a particular purpose or in a particular social setting. A study conducted by Halliday (1989) divided three categories that determine a register, such as:
1. Field
This first category, according to Halliday (1989), is a category about what language is being used to talk about. The field includes two elements which are the topic and the interactants. The topic of discourse can be specialized or technical topic, for example language used when talking about environment. Besides, it could also be everyday topic, for example when the language is used to talk about shopping, or another daily life conversation. On the other hand, the affecting element in this first category which is the interectants, would determine a language used when the interactants have specialized knowledge, for example when a scientist is writing for an article for an academic journal. Also, it might affect a register when the interactants have common knowledge of the field, for example when the interactants is talking about an article in a newspaper.
Halliday (1989) further claimed that „the field‟ determines the use of specialized
language, whether technical terms or everyday terms are used. Thus, it is important for a speaker to think and consider about the listener, which may be specialized or common knowledge listener.
Tenor is the role of the relationship between interactants. Halliday (1989) stated that the relationship between the interactants varies according to status (ranging from unequal as in the case of a boss/ employee to equal as with friends), affective involvement (ranging from high as with friends/family to low as with business clients), and contact (ranging from frequent to occasional). Hence, through this second category, the formality of language used is influenced by the relationship between interactants.
3. Mode
The third category that determines register is mode. Mode is the role that language is playing in the interaction. The role played by language can be written, spoken, or written to be spoken (e.g. a political speech). Halliday (1989) further claimed that language can be spontantenous (e.g. conversation), or planned (e.g. an article). Through the way language is presented, Halliday (1989) also stated that the level of interactiveness of language can have immediate feedback (e.g. conversation), rapid feedback (e.g. e-mails), and delayed feedback (e.g. letters) which can accompany an action (e.g saying while pointing to something) or describing an experience (e.g. report).
Male Register
Based on a study conducted by Karlsson (2007), the instrument used in order to learn about male register in a conversation is by conducting a test. What she found in this study is there are four characteristics which men usually use in making a conversation, such as:
Minimal response in order to let the woman know he is not interested in what she has to
say.
Swearing/Taboo-words: The man uses taboo-words which are supposed to be more
frequently used among males than females. The words are: Shit!, God damn it! Commands: „Give me some paper!‟, „Hand me the Sport Magazine by the sofa!‟.
Questions are frequently asked: in a conversation between male and female, men are
considered asking for questions in building and maintaining the flow of conversation (Swann, Deumert, Lillis, Mesthrie; 2004).
Female Register
Based on Lakoff‟s (1973) hypotheses of Female Register as the fundamental theory, there are six characteristics under the name of „Talking like a lady‟. The further study conducted by
Karlsson (2007) about language used by both male and female in a conversation test is was associated with Lakoff‟s (1973) theory about female register in a conversation. In her study, Karlsson found out the characteristics of language used by female consisted of these following features:
• Intensifiers: So, such,
Lakoff (1973) stated that women used intensively the word so than men. The word so is mainly used as a superlative word and to give emphasis on something. Example:
1. I feel so unhappy
• Hedges: I think, you know, I really, I mean, I‟m sure, I suppose
According to Lakoff (1973:54), to hedge is to avoid making any strong statement. To broaden our understanding of hedges, following are several meaning of hedges proposed by some researchers. Varttala (2001) as finding of the term of hedges as linguistic item which use to express the speaker‟s certainty or uncertainty and to avoid misunderstanding or miscommunication between speaker and addressee. Hence, Karlsson (2007) stated that female speaker uses hedges in order to explain what she means and invites the man to participate in the conversation
• Tag questions: You didn‟t- did you?
The use of the question intonation in conjunction with declarative, tag question, allows women to make statement without making assertion. Furthermore, Lakoff (1973) proposed several functions of tag question as follows:
a) A tag question used in the statement when the speaker is stating a claim, but not really sure of that claim (e.g. John is here, isn‟t?). The function of tag question in this kind of statement
is for asking confirmation from the addressee.
c) A tag question used when the speaker and the addressee know what the answer must be, and doesn‟t need confirmation. This kind of tag presents in the situation when the speaker is
trying to elicit conversation from the addressee (e.g. Sure is hot here, isn‟t?)
d) A tag used in discussing personal feelings or opinions and only the speaker normally has any way of knowing the correct answer (e.g. I have a headache, don‟t I?). This kind of sentence
is usually ridiculous.
e) A tag used in opinion statement seeking for supports, evidence, or confirmation from the addressee (e.g. The war in Vietnam is terrible, isn‟t it?). One possibility is that the speaker has a
particular answer in mind –„yes‟ or „no‟, but is reluctant to state it baldly.
Another point added by Lakoff in discussing tag question is a tag question is a kind of polite statement. By using tag question, speaker does not force agreement or belief on the addressee, but giving them freedom to agree or disagree with the speakers views.
In addition, another study of tag question has been done by Cameron, McAlinden and O‟Leary (1988) entitled Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In
this study, the writers discuss about Lakoff‟s theory of question tags in FtF interaction.
• The use of “Empty Adjective”
Lakoff (1973) defined empty adjective as an adjective which express the speaker‟s approbation
types of adjectives which usually used by women and neutral categorization, though some words from neutral category might be used by women as well.
Neutral Woman only
• Polite language: Please; Formal language: I can not…
Females tend to obey the rules of politeness while males tend to obey the rules of direct discourse. Hence, female speech is typically indirect, repetitious, and unclear while male is typically direct, clear, and precise.
Gender and CMC
The existence of CMC also replaces the traditional way for long distance communication by using letters.
CMC concluded as an effective communication-alternative that can be used for complex communication, such as problem-solving and decision-making. However, according to Hightower and Sayeed (1995) study found that: “CMC groups were less efficient at sharing information and tended to focus only on a portion of the information available as compared to face to face groups. Besides, Straus and McGrath (1994) study also found that: “by conducting a conversation through CMC, a negative impact of CMC compared to face to face discussions when it comes to productivity, but few differences regarding quality” (cited in Adrianson 2001)
Furthermore, the most obvious feature of Face to face communication that is lacking in CMC is physical presence, which provides social context sign such as non-verbal signals such as eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures. Also, another feature that is lacking are voice inflection, and volume. Furthermore, the last feature is such as age, sex, and physical appearance. Besides, according to Adrianson & Hjelmquist (1991), the difficulties that the person who chats faced in CMC is when discussing about complex and unstructured task. Also, there will be difficulties if the conversation conducted is about persuading or arguing about something.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) system has become an important part to establish, develop, and maintain interpersonal relationships nowadays. They are involved in the shaping of communication in almost every relational context. Furthermore, CMC becomes one of the aspects which influence the relationship building between one people to another. According to Coates (1993), “social status differences in real life between men and women in
conversation”. It is shown in group discussing consists of mixed-gender members, where men
tend to interrupt more than women.
The differences between features included in FtF communication and CMC also influenced the output of language used by both male and female. Adrianson (2001) through his study entitled Gender and CMC found out that that there were more “Opinions” given in FtF
communication, especially by females, than in CMC. There were also more “Disagreements” in FtF communication than in CMC. Moreover, Female communication stereotypes seem to be less important in CMC. Furthermore, In general, females are perceived as owning a greater ability to send, and receive, non-verbal signals than males, and these factors shows up as a stereotype in FtF communication. In CMC it could be seen as a disadvantage, not being able to use this ability, and in that matter, be more “like the way men talk”. This could be one of the reasons why
females show fewer stereotypes in CMC.
CMC is also affects the way men and women communicate, as males are believed to ignore greetings and goodbyes in their communication, while female are believed to start a conversation with greetings, and end the conversation with goodbyes when they need to (Lee, 2003). Besides, gender differences in CMC compare to FtF is the using of such as turn taking, topic switching, and conversation dominance, are equalized. As claimed by Smith-Lovin and Robinson (1992, as cited in Lee, 2013), that in FtF communication men are tend to interrupt more that women. However, in CMC there isn‟t such a clear division over which gender
interrupts the other gender more. Because of this, interruption is commonly happening in CMC. Another phenomenon proposed by Tannen (1994) about CMC is that women find no difficulty in finding something to talk about, and they talk about a small number of topics. Besides, men exhibit great difficulty finding something to talk about, so they produce small amounts of talk about each of a great number of topics.
THE STUDY
Context of Study
between males and females in general forum discussion website were copied after they finished the discussion.
Figure 1. DigitalSpy Forum Page
Participants
Research instrument
The instrument used in this study was observation. The observation was conducted while the participants were communicating in forum discussion website, forums.digitalspy.co.uk. To gather the information needed for this study, the participants were taking part in several female register and Karlsson‟s (2007) theoryon males‟ language.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Male Register
characteristics found were Strategy in order to control the conversation, Minimal response, Commands, and Questions asked.
1. Strategy in order to control the conversation
From the data, there were occurrences where male participants applied the „strategy to control the conversation‟. Below is an example of that strategy:
Figure 2. Example 1 of Strategy in control the conversation
From the excerpt above, the topic of the discussion was about what is the point of Israel attacking Gaza. However, the response given by the male speaker was not answering the question proposed by the female speaker, but then asking the forum what is the point of Gaza attacking Israel. This turning point practiced by the male speaker considered as „strategy to control the conversation‟ in order to maintain the conversation also an effort to keep the forum‟s
Another example of „strategy to control the conversation‟ found is:
Figure 3. Example 2 of Strategy in control the conversation
In this second example, as the topic of the discussion was about why Israel attacking Gaza, and their opinions towards the topic that they discussed in the forum. However, from the response given, the male did not answer the question asked by the previous speaker, but continuing by saying that it was a good question why Gaza attacking Israel. Then, the male speaker also tried to maintain the forum‟s interest by using exclamation point. This example is considered as „strategy to control the conversation‟ as the male speaker maintained and even
developed the conversation farther.
2. Minimal Response
From the data, the examples of „minimal response‟ found are in the following three
figures:
Figure 4. Example 1 of Minimal Response
Figure 6. Example 3 of Minimal Response
The responses given such as „well said’, ‘so funny’, and ‘agree 100%’ were considered as minimal response because they did not give their opinions towards the topic discussed in the forum. These three expressions also shows how the participants were not interested in what the previous speakers said, either the participants were not interested to response and discuss the topic further. (Karlsson, 2007)
Minimal response is a characteristic of male register which is sometimes used by the speaker alongside with the previous characteristic, the strategy to control the conversation. Minimal responses can be divided into two groups in terms of function. One is to show the listener‟s agreement and support, encouraging the current speaker to go on. And the other is to
interrupt the current speaker and to be dominant in talking (Hing, 2009). The using of minimal response by male speaker is also meant to let the female speaker know that he is not interested in what she has to say (Karlsson, 2007). However, from the findings, the using of minimal response by female speakers also could be found, even the using by female speakers are almost equal as men speaker did. Minimal responses given in forum discussion were mostly to show the speakers‟ agreement towards the opinion and suggestions proposed by other member of the
both male and female, as it is a response to show agreement, and the aim of forum discussion is to find an agreement between all members of the forum.
3. Commands
The examples of commands used in conversations can be seen in the following excerpts.
Figure 7. Example 1 of Command
Figure 9. Example 3 of Command
Figure 10. Example 4 of Command
The statement in figure 6 was considered as a command because the participant wanted the forum to read the article that supported his opinion. Moreover, the last statement in figure 7could also be considered as a command as the participant asked the previous speaker to try something else, as the previous speaker tried to change the topic of the discussion. On the other hand, the „command‟ used in figure 8 was when he asked the previous speaker not to give a
right-wing opinion. Lastly, the statement given in figure 9 is considered as a command as he wanted the previous speaker to explain or tell something he did not know.
the occurrence of „commands‟ usually used by the speakers when the speakers were asking for
the opposition‟s arguments. Thus, the using of this characteristic is in forum discussion is not based on gender, but on who has the role as a leader whether it is male or female.
4. Questions asked
Figure 11. Examples of Questions Asked
The above excerpts were examples of questions asked by the speakers during certain discussions in the forum. In FtF communication, men are believed to ask for questions more than women do in order to maintain and develop the conversation (Swann, Deumert, Lillis, Mesthrie; 2004).
Female Register
After collecting the data and through analyzing phase, all characteristics from female register found in the conversations. While, on the other hand, all characteristics proposed by Karlsson (2007) – as well supported by previous study by Lakoff (1973) – were found in the conversations. Based on the findings, from five characteristics proposed by Karlsson (2007), the characteristics found are Intensifiers: So, Hedges, Tag questions, Empty adjectives, and polite language.
1. The using of ‘So’
Figure 12. Examples of Intensifier: So
The words „so‟ found on the data taking part as an adverb that emphasize the adjectives.
Lakoff (1973) further claims that by using the word so, the speakers‟ feeling would be stronger in meaning. The using of the word “So” is one of the characteristics of female register found in
conversations. According to Lakoff‟s „Talk like a lady‟, women tend to use so for emphasizing
something and as a superlative form.
2. Hedges
The using of hedges considered as one of the major used characteristic in female register. These are hedges that found in conversations:
Following are the tentative cognition verbs found in the conversations:
Figure 13. Example of Hedges: Tentative Cognition Verb
The speakers used I think to portray how the speaker were not absolutely sure about the statement they said. The using of these hedges also aimed to stimulate a response from partner speaker. These kinds of hedges (I think and I believe) are categorized as tentative cognition verbs (Varttalla, 2001).
1.3 Probability Adverb
Figure 14. Example of Hedges: Probability Adverb
By using the word maybe, probably, and possibly, it expressed how the speaker was uncertain about the statement they said. The using of these „probability adverb‟ also shows how
the speakers were not sure, and asking for further opinion from the partner speaker. This
confirms what Varttala (2001) stating that the use of probability adverbs is categorized as hedges when it is used for expressing doubtful idea.
Figure 15. Example of Hedges: Modal Auxiliaries
The using of modal auxiliaries (should, can, would, and may) are to soften the participants‟ utterances since the purpose of these utterances were to offering a help asking a
help and asking for agreement.
Based on Lakoff‟s (1973) hypotheses about how the women talk, he claimed that women
massive as the speakers proposed their own arguments and opinions towards the topic. The intensity of using hedges by male speaker also found when they proposed their opinion and arguments. Hence, the using of hedges still dominated by the female speakers in giving and asking their opinions.
3. Empty Adjectives
The using of Empty Adjective is a characteristic of female register found in the conversations. Following are the findings of empty adjectives found in the data:
These adjectives are categorized as empty adjectives because the participants used it for showing their admiration as response. The speakers used these expressions to respond interlocutors‟ statements. While discussing the topics for the assignment, this characteristic often
used by female speaker in showing agreement response towards the opinion proposed by previous speaker. From the findings, this characteristic was also used by male speaker. However, the occurrence of using is often used by female speaker. Hence, in forum discussion situation, this characteristic still taking part in the way female speakers talk as it shown by the occurrence of this characteristic used by female speakers.
DATA INTERPRETATION
The were-not-found characteristic from male register is „the using of swearing or taboo words‟. After considering the reason why this characteristic was not used by the male speakers, it
could be concluded it might be because male speakers considered language politeness when communicate with female speakers. This could be explained by what Montgomery (1998) proposes that both men and women are more sensitive in a conversation with a women than they are when talking to men. Hence, in other words, men are more polite when talking to women. Furthermore, male register found from the findings shows that male speakers still use language with characteristics as proposed by Karlsson (2007). The characteristic that mostly found was questions asked as the field of conversation is forum discussion which required asking and giving opinions and proposing arguments.
Lakoff (1973) states that women use „so‟ intensively to give emphasis on something. Moreover, from the findings, the use of hedges by female speakers such as ‘I think’ and ‘I know’ still seem as major characteristic which was mostly used.
Hence, from the findings, male and female register determined by field, tenor, and mode, as proposed by Halliday (1998), as there were cross-register occurrences found in the conversations. For example, the female register hedges, like the use of tentative verb „I think‟
CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to identify male and female register in CMC. This study was conducted by observing the language used by thirty members of online forum discussion website members. Finally, this study concluded that male and female register were determined mostly by field, mode, and tenor of the language used (Halliday, 1998). In other words, the topic, the channel, and the participants of the disussion affect the language used. The other findings also confirm Karlsson (2007) when male use strategy to control the conversation, minimal response, questions asked, and commands in conversation. Moreover, this study agrees with Lakoff‟s (1973) theory, supported by Karlsson (2007) when female used intensifier so, and empty adjectives more often rather than men do. However, male and female could possibly be borrowing each other‟s register based on the field where the conversation takes place, as in this
study was forum discussion.
Another finding from this study is that language used by male and female speaker in CMC, especially in forum discussion may be changed. As Montgomery (1999) states that when talking with female, male speakers would use more polite language. Also, women are able to change their language when they are in a society where males and females have equal access to the standard form; thus, females use standard variants of any stable variable which is socially stratified for both sexes more often than males do (Nevalainen, 2002).
Acknowledgement
Being able to finish this thesis is a pleasing achievement. I would not have been able to finish this without helping from many people who gave me supports and encouragements to cheer me up. First of all, I would like to deepest gratitude to the Almighty Jesus for the guidance and blessing through all these days. Second, I would also like to thank my „daddy-cool‟ thesis supervisor, Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, MA, for his charismatic advices, suggestions, and encouragements through hesitating process so that I can finish this thesis. I would also like to show my appreciation to Dr. Elisabet Titik Murtisari, M.TransStud as my thesis examiner.
REFERENCES
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay
Adrianson. (2001). Computers in Human Behavior: Gender and computer-mediated communication: group processes in problem solving. 17. 71-94
Adrianson and Hjelmquist, 1985, Adrianson, L., &Hjelmquist, E. (1985). , Small group communication in two media: face-to-face and computer-mediated communication (Goteborg Psychological Reports, 15,1). Sweden, Goteborg: Goteborg University, Department of Psychology.
Adrianson, L. and E. Hjelmquist (1991). Group processes in face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Behavior and Information Technology 10 (4), 281-296.
Burgess, Heidi. 2013. Misunderstandings. beyondintractability.org. Retrieved on: 29 February. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/misunderstandings
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & O‟Leary, K. (1988).Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic
functions of tag questions. In J.Coates&D.Cameron (Eds.), Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex (pp. 74–93). New York: Longman.
Coates, Jennifer (1993): Women, Men and Language. London: Longman.
Connell, Robert. (2005). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press
Eckert. P & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, John. (1992). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins
Halliday M.A.K. and Hasan R. (1989) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Socialsemiotic Perspective, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hightower, R., Sayeed, L., &Warkentin, M (1995).Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based conference system. 28. 975-996
Hing, Ye (2009).An Analysis of Gender Differences in Minimal Responses in the conversations in the two TV-series Growing Pains and Boy Meets World. Ph.D. Thesis. Kristianstad University. Sweden
Karlsson, Susanne. (2007). Gender-related Differences in Language Use.Ph.D. Thesis. Luleå University. Sweden
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd. ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Kusek, J and Rist, R. (2004).Tens Steps To A Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman's Place. Language in Society , 45-80.
Lee, Christine.(2003).The mercury project for instant messaging studies. HowDoes Instant Messaging Affect Interaction Between the Genders
Leaper, C., &Robnett, R. D.(2011). Women are more likely than men to use tentative language; aren‟t they?: A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 35, 129-142.
Matheson, K. &Zanna, M.P. (1988).Persuasion as a function of self-awareness in computermediated communication. Social Behaviour, 4, 99-111.
Montgomery, M. B. (1998). Multiple Modals in LAGS and LAMSAS in From the Gulf States and Beyond: The Legacy of Lee Pederson and LAGS. Ed. M. B. Montgomery and T. E.
Nevalainen, Terttu. “Language and Woman‟s Place in Earlier English.” Journal of English
Linguistics 30, 2 (2002), 181-199.
Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994).Does the medium matter: The interaction of task and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.
Sumakul, D. T. (2011).EFL learners' communication strategies in coping with grammatical difficulties in synchronous CMC.Dissertation .
Tannen, Deborah. 1994.Talking from 9 to 5: How women's and men's conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. London: Virago.
Van Gass, K. M. (2008). Language contact in Computer-mediated communication: Afrikaans-English code switching on Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 429-444.
