Guricova Internet Slang in Rel

Home , Flaming (Internet), Imageboard, Internet linguistics, Internet slang, Jargon, LOL

Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English

and American Studies

Teaching English Language and Literature

for Secondary Schools

Bc. Kristýna Guricová

Internet Slang in Relation to ELT

Master‘s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: James Edward Thomas, M.A.

2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Author‘s signature

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, James Edward

Thomas, M. A., for his guidance, kind help and valuable advice throughout the process of writing this thesis.

I would also like to thank all the teachers and students of English who took part in my research and in my e-learning course. Finally, I would like to thank Petra Erbanová for her invaluable support and help.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 6 2 Internet slang - the linguistic perspective ...... 8 2.1 Defining slang ...... 10 2.2 Internet language as a variety of language ...... 17 2.2.1 Speech or writing? ...... 22 2.2.2 Pragmatic aspects of Internet language ...... 27 2.2.3 Research challenges of Internet linguistics ...... 33 2.3 Internet slang ...... 34 2.3.1 Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms ...... 36 2.3.2 Pictograms and logograms ...... 45 2.3.3 Non-standard language ...... 47 2.3.4 Slang words and phrases ...... 51 2.4 The codification of Internet slang ...... 57 2.5 Internet slang…a bad language? ...... 59 3 Internet slang in relation to ELT ...... 65 3.1 The research into Internet slang in relation to ELT ...... 67 3.1.1 What learners know versus what teachers know ...... 69 3.1.2 Attitudes towards incorporating Internet slang into ELT ...... 77 3.2 Internet slang e-learning course ...... 81 3.2.1 The aim of the e-course ...... 82 3.2.2 Designing the e-course ...... 83 3.2.3 The administration of the e-course ...... 89 4 Conclusion ...... 95 5 References ...... 98 6 Appendices ...... 103 6.1 Appendix 1: Student questionnaire ...... 103 6.2 Appendix 2: Teacher questionnaire ...... 110 6.3 Appendix 3: E-course screenshots ...... 117 6.3.1 E-learning environment ...... 117 6.3.2 Getting started ...... 118 6.3.3 Week 1: Abbreviations I ...... 119 6.3.4 Week 1: Chatting on Facebook exercise ...... 120 6.3.5 Week 1: Quiz ...... 121 6.3.6 Week 2: Abbreviations II ...... 122

6.3.7 Week 3: Txting...... 123 6.3.8 Week 4: Slang words and phrases ...... 124 6.3.9 Conclusion ...... 126 7 Summary ...... 127 8 Resumé ...... 128

1 INTRODUCTION

The Internet is a phenomenon of the modern era. As a new form of communication, the Internet has become a new dynamic linguistic medium. No wonder it has developed its own specific kind of language. While Internet slang is an area of language quite different from real-life communication and also different from what is usually taught in English lessons, English language learners are highly likely to encounter this language variety, since it is widely spread in the online world, such as in chat rooms, on social networking sites, in online games and online communities. Because the Internet has become an important part of our everyday communication such as telephoning, someone might actually wonder: If we teach students how to make a phone call in English, why not teach them how to chat or text in English? Does Internet slang have its place in English language teaching? Is it even a legitimate area of language, or is it only a kind of gibberish used by teenagers? These are some of the questions that this thesis will try to answer.

This diploma thesis is devoted to the analysis of Internet slang as a language variety and to the discussion of its place in English language teaching (ELT). One of the objectives of the thesis is to provide a linguistic analysis of Internet slang. Furthermore, the theoretical findings will be applied in the form of designing an Internet slang e-learning course for English language learners which will be administered. The course results will be evaluated and the benefit of the course will be discussed.

The thesis is divided into two main chapters. The first chapter is focused on Internet slang from a linguistic perspective. First section of the chapter deals with slang in general and discusses what constitutes slang. Then, the thesis examines Internet language as a special form of communication, since it possesses the characteristics of both speech and writing. In addition to that, the maxims of Internet language are analyzed

in comparison to the maxims of traditional forms of communication. The specific forms of violation of these maxims, such as trolling, spamming etc., are mentioned briefly.

Pragmatic principles that apply to online communication are presented as well, including new pragmatic principles which came into existence with this type of communication, i.e. the principle of economy, the principle of tolerance and the principle of humor.

Subsequently, pragmatic devices typical of online communication are featured. In the next section, the thesis focuses on the definition of Internet slang and its forms, namely abbreviations, pictograms and logograms, non-standard language, and also slang words and phrases. Each of these forms is described in detail and illustrated by a variety of examples.

The phenomena of Internet memes as a way of spreading slang expressions over the Internet is mentioned as well. Finally, the question of codification of Internet slang expressions is discussed, focusing on the new phenomena of collaborative online dictionaries, the Urban Dictionary in particular.

The second chapter deals with Internet slang in relation to English language teaching. The first part of the chapter discusses the place of Internet slang in language teaching, mainly focusing on the question whether it is appropriate, and eventually outlining a few guidelines for introducing slang to English language learners.

The discussion will be supported by information gained from both English language teachers and Czech learners of English in an online survey.

The next part of the chapter is devoted to the creation and realization of an Internet slang e-learning course. The aim and purpose of the course are introduced.

The e-course creation process is presented, including the methodology and tools which were used. The administration of the e-course is analyzed. The feedback provided by the course participants as well as the course output are discussed. Finally, a conclusion is drawn from the practical findings and the theoretical background.

2 INTERNET SLANG - THE LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

The Internet has been an integral part of everyday life for some time now.

As Crystal (2006) suggests, we live in a cyberspace. We get up and check our email on our laptops, we read the morning news on our iPads while having breakfast, on our way to work we log on to Facebook using our smartphones, then tweet about a terrible traffic jam, take a photo of a strange man who is stuck with us on the bus and share it on Instagram.

Finally, we arrive to work and turn on our desktop computers just in time to find out that we have got 8 ‗likes‘ on the photo of our bus ‗buddy‘ before reading an angry email from our boss regarding our absence at this morning‘s meeting. When Baron (2008) talked about the issue of being ―always on one technology or another, whether for communicating, doing work, or relaxing by surfing the web or playing games,‖ it was the year 2008 (p. 10). Since then, the issue has become even bigger due to the arrival of smartphones and tablets which practically keep us ON nonstop. With the Internet being an inevitable part of our contemporary life, there is no wonder that linguists have become interested in its influence on language. As a consequence, a new linguistic field has emerged: Internet linguistics.

As Crystal (2011) puts it, Internet linguistics is still in its infancy. As evidence of this might, for instance, serve the fact that the term Internet linguistics is not in universal use yet, for there are other terms which have been proposed to focus on the communicative function of the Internet, such as computer mediated communication (CMC), originating in the 1990s, or more inclusive names such as electronically mediated communication (EMC), and digitally mediated communication

(DMC) (Crystal, 2011). Nevertheless, Crystal (2011) finds these terms too broad from a linguistic point of view. As for terms such as Netspeak, Cyberspeak, Netlish, Weblish etc., which had been introduced by Crystal in his first edition of Language and the Internet back in 2001, there were rather denied by Crystal (2011) later in his Internet Linguistics:

a student guide for the following reasons: the weakness of Netspeak and Cyberspeak was that

―they placed undue emphasis on the potential linguistic idiosyncrasy of the medium and suggested that the medium was more homogeneous than it actually is‖; Netlish and

Weblish resulted from the predominance of English on the Internet which makes the terms too restricting today, considering the increasing presence of Chinese and other languages on the Internet (p. 2). Therefore, Crystal (2011) proposes Internet linguistics as ―the most convenient name‖ (p. 2).

In general, linguistics is a scientific study of language (Halliday, 2006, p. vii). Internet linguistics, as a sub-domain of linguistics, is defined by Crystal (2005) as ―the synchronic analysis of language in all areas of Internet activity, including email, the various kinds of chat room and game interaction, instant messaging, and Web pages, and including associated areas of computer mediated communication (CMC), such as SMS messaging

(texting)‖ (p. 1). However, changes are happening fast in the cyber world, and as a result, the definition of Internet linguistics provided in 2005 is not exactly accurate in 2013.

Therefore, a rather general, and thus more inclusive, definition suggested by Crystal a few years later seems to be a more appropriate one: Internet linguistics as ―the scientific study of all manifestations of language in the electronic medium‖ (Crystal, 2011, p. 2). For the purpose of this thesis, ‗all manifestations of language in the electronic medium‘ are being referred to as Internet language.

So far, it has been established that Internet language is the subject of study of Internet linguistics. The next question is: what is the position of Internet slang in relation to Internet language? Does the study of Internet slang fall within the scope of Internet linguistics? The thesis works on the assumption that Internet slang is, in fact, a specific variety of language which results from the overlap of both Internet language and slang,

both being ‗subcategories‘ 1 of language in general (see Figure 1). Therefore, in order to define the notion of Internet slang, it is necessary to provide the definition of slang as well as the definition of Internet language. Based on these findings, it can be determined what constitutes Internet slang.

Figure 1: The position of Internet slang within language

2.1 DEFINING SLANG

As Dumas and Lighter (1978) argue, few linguists have made efforts to clearly define what constitutes slang:

Although the phenomenon has frequently been discussed, the term slang has rarely

been defined in a way that is useful to linguists. Annoyance and frustration await

anyone who searches the professional literature for a definition or even

a conception of slang that can stand up to scrutiny. Instead one finds

impressionism, much of it of a dismaying kind. (p. 5)

Before getting annoyed and frustrated by the professional literature, it might be interesting to explore some thoughts on slang, as compiled by Bullard, Johnson, Morris, Fox, and

Howell (n.d.):

1 ‗Subcategories‘ is not a completely linguistically accurate term. However, the subject is quite complex, and is being dealt with in detail in the following chapters.

Slang is the poetry of everyday life.

- S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Action, 1941

Slang, n. The grunt of the human hog (Pignoramus intolerabilis) with an audible

memory.

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

I shall invent a new game; I shall write bits of slang and poetry on slips and give

them to you separate.

- George Eliot, Middlemarch, 1871

Slang is ―language which takes off its coat, spits on its hands -- and goes to work.‖

- Carl Sandburg

Slang is humanity‘s first play toy.

- John Algeo, University of Georgia professor

Slang, at its worst, it is stupidly coarse and provocative. At its best, it makes

standard English seem pallid.

- J. E. Lighter, chief editor of Random House Historical Dictionary of

American Slang

(as cited in Bullard et al., n.d., Some thoughts on slang)

In addition to these thoughts on slang provided by ‗the authorities on language‘, it would not feel right not to add ‗common man‘ interpretations of slang as well, and from nowhere else than the largest online slang dictionary up to date, the Urban Dictionary

(www.urbandicitonary.com). The uniqueness of this Web-based dictionary, which is based

on user contributions, is discussed in Chapter 2.4. As for the definition of slang, the first one featured on the Urban Dictionary website, i.e. the definition with most ‗thumbs up‘, is rather tautological: slang is defined as ―the only reason Urbandictionary.com exists‖; another definition talks about the ―ever-evolving bastardization of the written and spoken language as a result of social and cultural idolization of uneducated, unitelligable [sic] celebrities.‖ The aforementioned quotes provide a vague idea of the concept of slang, yet they demonstrate specific features of slang: non-standard language, colloquialism, playfulness, cultural and social aspect, profanity.

Slang can be described as informal, non-standard words or phrases, i.e. lexical innovations, which tend to originate in subcultures within a society (as cited in Bullard et al., n.d., What is slang?). For these subcultures, slang is ―a private code that embodies their particular values and behavior and reinforces their exclusivity‖ (Thorne, 2007, p. 7); i.e. slang can be considered ―a distinguishing factor of in-group identity‖ (Bullard et al., n.d.,

What is slang?). However, Thorne (2007) adds that ―slang expressions may escape the originating group and become more widely used‖ (p. 7). In general, a slang expression must be widely adopted by the group who uses it in order to survive (Bullard et al., n.d.,

What is slang?). Expressions used as slang:

may take form as metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech;

may be new coinages;

existing words may acquire new meanings;

narrow meanings of words may become generalized;

words may be abbreviated, etc.

(as cited in Bullard et al., n.d., What is slang?)

However, Crystal (1987) notes that ―the slang of one generation can be standard English of the next,‖ e.g. ‗bus‘ from ‗omnibus‘, ‗zoo‘ from ‗zoological garden‘, ‗piano‘ from

‗pianoforte‘, etc. (p. 53). Since these findings provide a rather broad definition, it is necessary to ask: Can it be established what slang is and what slang is not?

Dumas and Lighter (1978) argue that an expression should be considered ‗true slang‘ if it meets at least two of the following criteria:

1. It lowers, at least for the moment, ―the dignity of formal or serious speech

or writing‖; in other words, it this means that an individual familiar with

the expression ―will not find it in the midst of a serious discourse in

otherwise standard English‖ except for the rhetorical effect of signaling that

―the speaker or writer is deliberately being undignified or intimate with his

audience‖; in those contexts, the use of such expression will seem as

a ―glaring misuse of register.‖

2. Its use implies that the user is familiar with the referent, or with a group

of people (―less statusful or less responsible class of people‖) who are

familiar with the expression and use it.

3. ―It is a tabooed term in ordinary discourse with persons of higher social

status or greater responsibility.‖ However, taboo language might vary

depending on the situation as well as the time period or culture.

4. It is used to replace ―a well-known conventional synonym, especially

in order (a) to protect the user from the discomfort caused by the

conventional item or (b) to protect the user from the discomfort

or annoyance of further elaboration.‖

(pp. 14-15)

Dumas and Lighter (1978) conclude that if an expression fits two or more of the criteria,

―a linguistically sensitive audience will react to it in a certain way‖; this reaction cannot be measured, yet it is ―the ultimate identifying characteristic of true slang‖ (p. 16).

To narrow down the notion of what slang can be, Bullard et al. (n.d.) provide a list of what slang is not:

Slang is not ―whatever is new or popular in the way of language.‖

Dialect: Cohesive, chiefly regional and socioeconomic varieties of a language.

Catch phrases: Cultural phrases which derive their meaning from a cultural reference

with which the speaker and listener must both be familiar. Example: ―Hasta la vista,

baby.‖ (Terminator)

Jargon: (1) the technical language of a special field; (2) the obscure use of specialized

language.

Slogans: A forceful, catchy, mind-grabbing utterance which will rally people to buy

something or behave in a certain way. Example: ―Make love, not war‖;

―fingerlickin‘ good!‖

Graffiti: Any spontaneous or unauthorized writing or drawing on walls, vehicles,

and other public places. It is typically obscene or political in character, but a great

deal of humor and wisdom can also be found. Examples: ―Lethargy

rulezzzzzzzzzzz‖

Argot or cant: Special vocabulary used by a secretive social group.

English.

Colloquialism: An expression used in ordinary conversation, but not regarded as

slang; simply informal English.

Solecism: Breach of grammar; a breach of etiquette. Example: ―He don‘t know

better.‖

(as cited in Bullard et al., n.d., What slang is not!)

So far, it has been established what slang is and what slang is not. Therefore, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the function of slang expressions?

According to Thorne (2007), slang terms have certain recognizable functions:

1. A slang word may fill a gap in the existing lexicon (e.g. ‗glomp‘ for jumping and

hugging someone from behind).

2. A slang expression may be substituted for an existing term, i.e. relexicalisation (e.g.

‗blamming‘ for exciting; ‗chuffie‘ for chewing gum). The motives behind this might

be: by renaming something, you make it yours, and you make it funnier or ruder.

3. Many slang synonyms or near-synonyms may be invented because ―the words in

question have an emblematic force over and above their primary meanings,‖ i.e.

overlexicalisation. The most significant groupings of terms continue to be

in the following semantic fields: the categories of drunkenness and druggedness,

of terms of approval and enthusiasm, of insults and pejorative nicknames and

of expressions relating to sex and partnership.

(pp. 8-9)

Last but not least, the issue regarding the use of slang needs to be discussed. There is no denying the fact that the attitudes towards the use of slang in contrast to standard, or proper, English seem to be rather negative ones. For instance, thoughts on slang mentioned earlier in this chapter, or references to slang as expressions ―lowering the dignity of formal or serious speech‖ or expressions used by ―less statusful or less responsible class of people‖ quite prove the point (Dumas & Lighter, 1978, p. 14). Some condemn the use of slang because they believe that ―it undermines the standard language and reflects poorly upon its users‖ (Bullard et al., n.d., Why people use slang). However, as

Bullard et al. (n.d.) note: whereas slang was once considered as the lowest form of communication, the situation has changed and many share the view that slang is actually an intelligent and insightful variation to the blandness of the standard language. According

to Crystal (1987), slang has so many uses that it is difficult to choose one as central, and therefore he presents 15 different reasons for the use of slang as distinguished by Partridge in Slang: Today and Yesterday (1933):

1. for the fun of it

2. as an exercise in wit or ingenuity

3. to be different

4. to be picturesque

5. to be arresting

6. to escape from clichés

7. to enrich the language

8. to add concreteness to speech

9. to reduce seriousness

10. to be colloquial

11. for ease of social interaction

12. to introduce intimacy

13. to show that one belongs

14. to exclude others

15. to be secret

Crystal (1987) points out that among these reasons, one theme recurs: ―the use of slang as a means of marking social or linguistic identity‖ (p. 53). Let us conclude this chapter in Crystal‘s (1987) words:

Slang is, by definition, a colloquial departure from standard usage; it is often

imaginative, vivid, and ingenious in its construction […]. It thus especially attracts

those who, for reasons of personality or social identity, wish to be linguistically

different – to be ‗one of the gang‘, whether the ‗gang‘ in questions be soldiers,

nurses, actors, footballers, prisoners, warders, linguists, gays, or pop singers

(p. 53).

2.2 INTERNET LANGUAGE AS A VARIETY OF LANGUAGE

The next step in the process of defining Internet slang is exploring the notion of Internet language. In order to do, it is essential to introduce the concept of a language variety. Crystal (2006) defines a variety of language as ―a system of linguistic expression whose use is governed by situational factors‖: such system includes speech and writing, regional and class dialects, occupational genres, creative linguistic expression, etc.

(1 A linguistic perspective, Internet situations, para. 1). Varieties of language are systematic and predictable, meaning that we can expect to a certain extent how people from a particular region will speak (e.g. Liverpool English), how lawyers will write (legal English), or how television commentators will present a type of sport (Crystal, 2006). However, if an important element of the situation changes, it motivates a change in the language people use as well, which is caused by the sociolinguistic expectations of interlocutors and people‘s wishes to behave conventionally (Crystal, 2006). Either there are strict rules about what kind of language we may use in a certain situation, or there is an element of choice when we can choose, for instance, whether to use a formal or an informal tone (Crystal, 2006).

Crystal (2006) discusses whether a situationally influenced language such as Internet language can be considered a language variety, and does so by examining its distinctive features, namely graphic, orthographic, grammatical, lexical, and discourse features.

However, Crystal (2011) argues that the Internet is not an entirely homogenous language-using situation which generates a single variety of language. Thus, he recognizes several different Internet situations, or outputs of Internet technology (as he calls them later on in his Internet linguistics: a student guide), in which users of the Internet present themselves with a specific kind of graphic, orthographic, grammatical, lexical, and discourse

features, i.e. these situations are ―sufficiently different to mean that the language they contain is likely to be significantly distinctive‖ (Crystal, 2006, 1 A linguistic perspective).

The following list of Internet outputs is based on Crystal‘s (2006; 2011) as well as Baron‘s

(2008) research:

World Wide Web: the full collection of all the computers linked

to the Internet which holds documents that are mutually accessible through

the use of a standard protocol (HTTP), and in site addresses, presented as

the acronym www.

Email: the use of computer systems to transfer messages between private

mailboxes.

Chat groups: continuous discussions on a particular topic, organized

in ‗rooms‘ at particular Internet websites. There are two forms: synchronous

(the interaction takes place in real time; e.g. chat rooms), and asynchronous

(the interaction takes place in postponed time; e.g. online forums, news

groups, bulletin boards). Participants are usually unknown to each other.

Virtual worlds: fantasy role-playing games which people participate in order

to engage in text-based fantasy social interaction.

Text messaging: the use of mobile phones to transfer short electronic

messages between phone numbers.

Instant messaging: electronic conversations between people who know each

other; they take place in real time.

Blogging: blog is a form of a personalized web page where the owner can

post messages at intervals. Blogs can be personal diaries; many are on topics

of general interest or concern, such as a hobby or political issue.

Social networking: social networking sites are Web-based platforms

for the purpose of social interaction among users who share interests,

activities, backgrounds, real-life connections, etc.

Furthermore, Baron (2008) provides a division of the Internet outputs based on two dimensions of communication:

1. Does communication happen in real time (synchronous), or is it postponed

(asynchronous)?

2. Is the communication intended for a single person (one-to-one), or for

a larger audience (one-to-many)?

Based on these aspects, the following scheme can be outlined (adapted from Baron, 2008, p. 14):

Table 1: Aspects of Internet communication asynchronous synchronous

one-to-one email, text messaging instant messaging

online forums, blogs, social one-to-many chat rooms, virtual worlds networking

Since it would be too lengthy to analyze individual outputs in greater detail, at least the following outputs need to be pointed out as the key outputs regarding Internet slang: text messaging, instant messaging, blogging and social networking, for these outputs are mainly associated with informal and social interactions, and thus various forms of Internet slang can be found there. Social networking sites have become a big issue in the recent years, and a lot interaction is happening via these sites. Some of them combine the services of microblogging as well as instant messaging or email, such as Facebook. The research into Internet slang in relation to ELT, which has been conducted among English language teachers and Czech learners of English (for more details, see Chapter 3.1), also examined

the respondents‘ familiarity with several selected websites or applications, which had been chosen on the basis of their relevance towards Internet slang. As for 2013, the following websites or applications are among the most popular ones:

Facebook: one of the most popular social networking sites which combines

microblogging in the form of Facebook statuses with instant messaging/email

in the form of Facebook chat.

Twitter: an online social networking and microblogging service that enables users

to send and read ‗tweets‘, which are messages limited to 140 characters.

Google+: a social networking and identity service similar to Facebook.

YouTube: a video-sharing website, on which users can upload, view and share

videos.

Instagram: an online photo-sharing, video-sharing and social networking service that

enables its users to take pictures and videos, apply digital filters to them, and share

them on a variety of social networking services.

Tumblr: a microblogging platform and social networking website, which allows

users to post multimedia and other content to a short-form blog.

Pinterest : a pinboard-style photo-sharing website that allows users to create and

manage theme-based image collections such as events, interests, and hobbies.

4chan: an English-language imageboard website, which has been linked to Internet

subcultures; 4chan users are also often responsible for the formation or

popularization of Internet memes2.

Reddit: a social news and entertainment website where registered users submit

content in the form of links or text posts.

2 For more details on Internet memes, see Chapter 2.3.4.

Imgur: an online image hosting service and a comment-based social community,

which also offers simple meme creation as well as a public gallery of popular meme

templates.

9gag: an image-based social media website which is based around user-uploaded,

comical images, mainly known for recurring use of Internet memes.

Urban Dictionary3: a collaborative Web-based slang dictionary.

Some of these websites are rather related to specific online communities with their own characteristic Internet vocabularies, such as Reddit or Tumblr which used to be more on the fringe of society; however, Knibbs (2013) points out that the situation is changing because, for example, now the president of the United States is doing Reddit interviews and making a Tumblr page. According to the abovementioned research, Facebook and

YouTube are the most popular and most visited websites among English teachers as well as Czech learners of English. In addition, it might be interesting to point out that even though according to a recent study Twitter overtakes Facebook as the most popular social network for American teenagers, this social networking site is definitely not very popular in the Czech Republic, since over 70% of respondents in the thesis survey have reported that they do not visit or use Twitter at all (Greig, 2013). Nevertheless, it is undeniable that some of the featured websites are the places where Internet slang is ‗born‘, while others are websites where Internet slang is spread. However, before Internet slang can be analyzed, it is necessary to look at the ‗bigger picture‘ first, and begin with characterizing Internet language as a new form of communication, which leads to an interesting question: Is

Internet language speech or writing?

3 For more details on the Urban Dicitonary, see Chapter 2.4.

2.2.1 SPEECH OR WRITING?

In order to characterize Internet language as a novel form of communication,

Crystal (2006) uses the comparative approach, i.e. he determines Internet language by examining its relationship to spoken and written language. For the purpose of comparison, the nature of spoken and written language, and the factors which differentiate them need to be established. Adapted from Crystal (2006), Table 2 provides a simplified summary of the main differences:

Table 2: Differences between speech and writing Speech Writing time-bound, dynamic, transient space-bound, static, permanent spontaneous: contrived: no time-lag between production time-lag between production and and reception reception looser construction, repetition, careful organization rephrasing, comment clauses intonation and pause divide long utterances into chunks face-to-face: visually decontextualized: face-to-face interaction, extralinguistic cues, lack of visual contact; participants cannot deictic expressions rely on context to make their meaning clear; no immediate feedback socially interactive – words and factually communicative – words and constructions characteristic of speech: constructions characteristic of writing: contracted forms multiple instances of subordination lengthy co-ordinate sentences in the same sentence nonsense vocabulary elaborately balanced syntactic obscenity patterns slang long sentences

loosely structured: elaborately structured: social or ‗phatic‘ functions; prosodic and recording of facts, communication of ideas, non-verbal features tasks of memory and learning, mnemonics immediately revisable: repeatedly revisable: errors, once spoken, cannot be withdrawn; errors can be eliminated in later drafts; interruptions and overlapping present interruptions invisible in the final products prosodically rich: graphically rich: pages, lines, capitalization, intonation, contrasts of loudness, tempo, spatial organization, aspects of punctuation rhythm, pause, and other tones of voice

Taking into consideration the above mentioned differences between speech and writing,

Crystal (2006) reached the conclusion that the Internet is a mixed medium, relying on characteristics belonging to both sides of the speech/writing divide. However, it is important to consider which Internet output is in question, for they vary in terms of their similarities with speech and writing (Crystal, 2011). Crystal (2006) applied written language criteria and spoken language criteria to individual Internet outputs, and received the following results (see Table 3 and Table 4):

Table 3: Spoken language criteria applied to Internet outputs Virtual Instant Web Blogging Email Chat groups worlds messaging

yes, but in yes, but in yes, but in

1. time-bound no no different different different yes

ways ways ways

yes, but with yes, but with yes, but with 2. spontaneous no variable yes restrictions restrictions restrictions

no, unless

3. face-to-face no no no no no camera

used

4. loosely structured variable yes variable yes yes yes

no, with no, with yes, but with yes, but with 5. socially interactive increasing increasing variable yes restrictions restrictions options options

6. immediately no no no no no no revisable

7. prosodically rich no no no no no no

Table 4: Written language criteria applied to Internet outputs Virtual Instant Web Blogging Email Chatgroups worlds messaging

yes, but yes, but yes, with extra yes, but with yes, but with moves off- 1. space-bound yes routinely options restrictions restrictions screen deleted rapidly

no, but with no, but with

2. contrived yes variable variable some some no

adaptation adaptation

yes, but with yes, but with 3. visually yes, unless considerable yes yes yes some decontextualized camera used adaptation adaptation

4. elaborately yes variable variable no no no structured

yes, but with 5. factually yes yes yes variable some variable communicative adaptation

6. repeatedly yes variable variable no no no revisable

no, with yes, but in yes, but in 7. graphically rich increasing no no different no different ways options ways

In fact, two outputs are not included in the analysis: text messaging and social networking.

Basically, text messaging shares many similarities with instant messaging; however, in some ways it can be also compared to email, depending on the situation. Social networking sites provide users with interaction through the means of various outputs, such as email, instant messaging, and blogging, especially in the form of microblogging (i.e. Facebook statuses, tweets).

From the application of spoken language and written language criteria to individual

Internet outputs, it is evident that they vary. On the one hand, there is the web which

in many of its functions is no different from traditional situation that use writing; on the other hand, there are email, chat groups, instant messaging, and texting, though expressed through the medium of writing, display several core properties of speech:

they are time governed, expecting or demanding an immediate response; they are

transient, in the sense that messages may be immediately deleted (as in emails) or be

lost to attention as they scroll off the screen (as in chat groups); and their utterances

display much of the urgency and energetic force which is characteristic

of face-to-face conversation (Crystal, 2011, pp. 19-20).

In conclusion, ―Internet language is identical to neither speech nor writing, but selectively and adaptively displays properties of both,‖ and at the same time, ―it does things that neither of the other medium does‖ (Crystal, 2011, p. 21).

Crystal (2011) presents the following properties which differentiate Internet language from speech and writing:

Differences with speech

Simultaneous feedback

While in real-life conversations, listeners provide simultaneous feedback on the interaction in the form of vocalizations (e.g. mhm? or really?), facial movement (e.g. nodding, laughing), and gestures (e.g. hand movement, shrugging), simultaneous feedback is absent in Internet situations – there is always some kind of time lag which makes the participants unsure between turns (Crystal, 2011). As a result of the lack of simultaneous feedback, reaction signals, comment clauses, and tag questions, which are normally present in informal conversation giving the listener the option of providing feedback, do not occur in Internet situations, and it is suggested that the absence of these features is one of the reasons why Internet interactions are often misperceived as abrupt, cold, distant, or antagonistic (Crystal, 2011).

Emoticons

Because Internet situations lack kinesics and proxemics, i.e. facial expressions, gestures, and conventions of body posture and distance, emoticons have been developed in order to avoid ambiguity (Crystal, 2011). The most common ones are :) for positive reactions and :( for negative reactions; however, there are many more possibilities offered by message exchange systems. Nevertheless, Crystal (2011) suggests that the semantic role of emoticons has been proved to be limited: for instance, the basic smile :) can mean sympathy, delight, amusement, etc., and these can be disambiguated by referring to the verbal context; moreover, in some situations, emoticons can even increase misunderstanding, e.g. adding a smile to an ironic utterance can be perceived negatively or positively. One study showed that emoticons have been primarily used by young people; nevertheless, Crystal (2011) argues that it is yet to be determined who uses emoticons, when, where, and why, and it is necessary to conduct more studies answer these questions.

Multiple conversations

While in a traditional speech setting it is impossible to hold a conversation with more than one or two people at a time, there is a possibility of having more conversations at once on the Internet, which is usually the case of chat rooms or forums (Crystal, 2011).

Differences with writing

Hypertext links

According to Crystal (2011), hypertextuality is the most fundamental functional property of the Internet, which enables text to be linked through references (hyperlinks) to other text. Crystal (2011) compares it to footnotes and cross-references in traditional writing, which are optional features; however, hypertext links are inevitable in the Internet environment.

Persistence

Persistence, meaning that a piece of text is permanent and static on the page, is one of the key properties of traditional writing; nevertheless, persistence of individual Internet outputs varies: some of the texts may be ephemeral, e.g. conversations from chat rooms and instant messaging; some of them are archived, e.g. comments on websites, emails until we decide to delete them (Crystal, 2011).

Multiple authorship

The phenomenon of multi-authorship means that users may alter an existing texts if they wish to do so, which is most evident in wiki-type pages, such as Wikipedia, collaboratively edited, free Internet encyclopedia (Crystal, 2011). As a result, such texts are pragmatically as well as stylistically heterogeneous (Crystal, 2011).

In conclusion, Crystal (2006) sees Internet language as a new medium, a new form of communication, which is more than just a hybrid of speech and writing, for it cannot be identified with either spoken language or written language, even though it shares some features of both. In addition, Alvarez-Caccamo (as cited in Crystal, 2006) feels a uniqueness in the nature of Internet-based communication, regarding the speed, invisibility, distribution, and anonymity of electronic interaction. Internet language stands for a ‗third medium‘ which combines the following: ‗speech + writing + electronically mediated properties‘ (Crystal, 2006, 1 The medium of Netspeak, Speech or writing?).

2.2.2 PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF INTERNET LANGUAGE

So far, the notion of Internet language has been established as a novel medium which combines spoken, written and electronic properties (Crystal, 2006). In this chapter,

the question of what makes Internet communication different from the traditional face-to-face conversation will be discussed with regard to pragmatics.

Pragmatic principles of Internet language

In his paper, Hu (2011) argues that Internet communication tends to challenge many pragmatic principles, including the cooperative principle, the politeness principle, the relevance theory, and the rules of turn-taking; furthermore, he proposes new pragmatic principles applicable in Internet communication.

Cooperative principle

Cooperative principle describes how people interact with one another: ―people who obey the cooperative principle in their language use will make sure that what they say in a conversation furthers the purpose of that conversation‖ (Hu, 2011, p. 48). This principle can be expressed by four conversational maxims as proposed by Paul Grice:

The maxim of Quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically: Do not say what you

believe to be false.

Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

The maxim of Relevance

Make your contributions relevant.

The maxim of Quantity

Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of

the exchange.

Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

The maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous, and specifically:

Avoid obscurity.

Avoid ambiguity.

Be brief.

Be orderly.

(Crystal, 2006, 1 The medium of Netspeak, Netspeak maxims)

As both Crystal and Hu suggest (2006; 2011), the cooperative principle is often violated in Internet-based communication: the anonymity of the electronic medium and the absence of prosodic and kinesic features result in ambiguity. There are specific circumstances which signal the violation of the conversational maxims, for example:

Spoofing: the sending of messages whose origin is suspect (the violation of the

maxim of quality)

Trolling: the sending of a message specifically intended to cause irritation to others,

such as in online forums (the violation of the maxim of quality).

Lurking: a type of behavior which consists of accessing a chat group, reading its

messages but not contributing to the discussion (the violation of the maxim

of quantity).

Spamming: the spreading of usually unwanted messages of excessive size, whether by

sending emails or by posting them in online forums or on social networking sites

(the violation of the maxim of quantity).

Flaming: the sending of aggressive messages, related to a specific topic, and

directing at an individual recipient (the violation of the maxim of manner).

(Crystal, 2006, 1 The medium of Netspeak, Netspeak maxims)

In addition, the lack of purpose, randomness and the frequent changing in topics are general examples of the violation of Grice‘s maxims typical of online communication (Hu,

2011).

Politeness principle

Politeness principle introduced by Geoffrey Leech is another important pragmatic principle which focuses on the aspects of politeness in communication, and how people are often indirect in conveying what they mean in order to be polite, and thus violate the cooperative principle (Hu, 2011, p. 49). Hu (2011) argues that the levels of politeness in online communication are lower that the daily verbal communication and people tend to communicate in a free and relaxing manner, which is caused by anonymity, equal identities, and a sense of distance and security in the Internet environment. Moreover,

―being too polite will kill the mood of relaxation of net chat‖ (Hu, 2011, p. 49).

Relevance theory

Relevance theory proposed by Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson argues that

―the hearer/reader/audience will search for meaning in any given communication situation and having found meaning that fits their expectation of relevance, will stop processing‖

(Hu, 2011, p. 49). Hu (2011) gives an example:

Mary: Would you like to come for a run?

Bill: I‘m resting today.

From this, we understand that Bill does not want to go for a run; however, that is not what he said. Hu (2011) explains that Bill only said enough for Mary to add the context-mediated information, i.e. someone who is resting does not usually go for a run, and thus the implication is that Bill does not want to go for a run today. Relevance theory suggests that speech underdetermines thought (what we say is small compared to the thoughts it provokes), that verbal communication is a purposeful, intentional activity to convey the speaker‘s intentions, and that the key to a successful communication is for the speaker and the listener to be governed by the search for optimal relevance, i.e. they both tend to spend minimal efforts to gain the maximum effects (Hu, 2011). In Internet communication, people need to pay more effort in order to discover the relevance

of the discourse, for people tend to use different communicative ‗codes‘, such as abbreviations (Hu, 2011).

Rules of turning taking

Turning taking is a typical feature of verbal communication which means that the speakers participate in the conversation according to a certain order of turn (Hu, 2011).

Hu (2011) suggests that this rule is violated in Internet communication: the discourse tends to overlap, because the participants do not know when the other would start to chat, and therefore two speakers become both the speaker and addressee at the same time.

New pragmatic principles

Since some pragmatic principles of daily verbal communication are not applicable on the Internet, Hu (2011) proposes new principles relevant to Internet communication which should be followed in order to achieve the communication success:

Principle of economy

The effectiveness and quickness of Internet communication require that people can

respond at the first time.

The fastest and simplest way is the best way.

Try to avoid procrastination and obscurity.

Principle of tolerance

Tolerance in Internet communication is required especially towards the following:

The use of typos, or grammatically unsuitable words.

Straightforwardness and uncertainty in communication.

Many things are not taken seriously.

Technical defects.

Principle of humor

Humorous effect is a key point in Internet communication: it eases the tension

among strangers and entertains the conversation participants.

Pragmatic devices of Internet language

For expressing emotion in Internet communication without providing lengthy written explanations, text and graphic pragmatic devices are used to support or enhance communication functions; for example, emoticons convey an expressive function of language, or abbreviations such as YW (i.e. you are welcome) express a phatic function

(Varnhagen et al., 2009). Based on their research into instant messaging, Varnhagen et al.

(2009) classified pragmatic devices as follows:

Table 5: Categories of pragmatic devices Pragmatic devices Example Example in context

Emotion word hahahaha hahahaha okay

soooooo wow im soooooo glad

Emotion acronym LOL LOL im not talking to you

omg for social we have to omg do this…

Upper case THAT Not THAT nervous though.

u might have to actualy WASH WASH that sweater

Emotion punctuation ………… so I was thinking…………

:) :) doo it hahah

Varnhagen et al. (2009) define emotion words as words which express emotion, such as representing laughter (e.g. hahahaha) or repeating vowels to mirror pragmatic lengthening

(e.g. whaaat to represent a drawn out expression of surprise). Emotion acronyms can express various emotions, such as amusement (e.g. LOL) or surprise (e.g. omg). Upper case is also used to represent emotion, such as surprise (e.g. WHAT), or for emphasis (e.g. not

THAT nervous though). Emotion punctuation is used for emphasis (e.g. !!!!!!!) or as emoticons

(e.g. :-(). However, Varnhagen et al. (2009) point out that the research showed that there are many individual differences regarding the use of pragmatic devices; for instance, one participant expressed shock with upper case (WHAT), another used pragmatic lengthening

(whaaaat), and another added extra punctuation (what!!!!!). On a related note, one should be careful with using the upper case, since writing the whole message in upper case is usually perceived as shouting, and thus rather rude.

2.2.3 RESEARCH CHALLENGES OF INTERNET LINGUISTICS

As already stated before, Internet language, which has been analyzed in this chapter, is the subject of study of Internet linguistics. Before moving onto defining the notion of Internet slang, it is important to briefly address the challenges which the researchers of Internet linguistics need to face.

As Crystal (2011) points out, there has never been a language corpus as large as the Internet, and thus the first challenge for linguistics is the amount of data it contains.

Secondly, because of the diversity of language it is difficult to find linguistic generalizations that apply to Internet language as a whole, and thirdly, the speed of change is a big issue and information become outdated fast (Crystal, 2011). Finally, it is rather difficult to obtain data for research, mainly because of privacy reasons, and thus research, to a certain extent, lacks objectivity. As Eisenstein (2013) points out, public social media, such as Twitter, blog comments, chat rooms and forums, have dominated recent research, for these forms of social media are public by default whereas text messages and emails are private; public social media data are therefore less problematic regarding privacy issues and far easier to obtain. Furthermore, the issue of anonymity complicates establishing situational factors which motivate or condition a use of language, such factors are for instance age, gender, class, and ethnicity (Crystal, 2011).

However, despite these challenges, Crystal (2011) believes that the Internet ―offers linguists unprecedented opportunities for original research,‖ for it is not only about the investigation of the new kinds of language introduced by the technology, but also about the reinterpretation of ―everything we already know about language as realized through the older mediums of speech, writing, and sign‖ (p. 14).

2.3 INTERNET SLANG

Going back to the start, this chapter will attempt to define Internet slang, sometimes referred to as cyberslang. However, as the previous chapters might suggest, it is not going to be a simple task. None of the scholarly sources really pay much attention to

Internet slang; therefore, various online sources have been consulted as well.

Same as Internet language, Internet slang is not homogenous, and therefore a standardized definition cannot be provided. According to Jones‘s Internet slang dictionary

(2006), Internet slang is ―the broad definition given to almost any acronym or abbreviation created to eliminate keystrokes online (whether it‘s IM, email, chat, or text message)‖

(What is Internet slang?). However, this definition seems to be rather limiting since it refers to only acronyms and abbreviations. Thorne (2007) provides a more inclusive definition when he talks about cyberslang as ―informal, abbreviated or humorous terms‖ used in online communication (p. 12). InternetSlang.com website defines Internet slang as ―slang terms, acronyms and abbreviations as used in websites, on Twitter, ICQ chat rooms, blogs,

SMS, and Internet forum‖ (―Internet slang words and computer slang,‖ 2013). Some sources go even further and include misspellings as well; for instance, Coin refers to the language of Internet slang as everything from ―abbreviations to portmanteaus, to purposefully misspelled words‖ (―Trolling for slang: the origins of Internet werdz,‖ 2012).

Furthermore, according to Know Your Meme website, Internet slang ―consists of a number of different ways of speaking, sub-languages, expressions, spelling techniques and idioms

that have obtained most of their meaning on the Internet. These different kinds of language can be either known as chatspeak, SMS speak or IM language‖ (―Internet Slang,‖

2009). On the other hand, some definitions appear to be too broad, such as the definition of cyberslang provided by NetLingo.com which associates Internet slang with online jargon.

However, based on previous findings, jargon is not considered slang, and thus should be excluded. Finally, here are a few selected definitions of Internet slang or cyberslang as featured on the Urban Dictionary:

The term used to refer to words and/or expressions commonly reserved for use

online in chat rooms or instant messengers (―Cyberslang,‖ 2005).

A kind of language which people most commonly use on internet, there are various

types of internet slang including letter homophones (u r gd), punctuation (!?),

capitalization (STOP!), onomatopoeic (hahaha) and emoticons (=])

(―Internet-slang,‖ 2013).

From all the above mentioned definitions, the specific features of Internet slang can be narrowed down as follows:

1. Slang that has emerged from and/or is used in Internet-based communication

2. Differences in relation to various outputs and/or different Internet

communities/sub-cultures

The thesis prefers the broader definition of Internet slang, and works on the assumption that Internet slang consists not only of acronyms and abbreviations, but also takes account of emoticons, various spelling techniques, idioms, and other slang expressions. Therefore, for the purpose of this thesis, Internet slang can be defined as expressions, non-standard language, and idioms, which are used in informal, Internet-based communication, and which might vary, depending on the output or sub-culture. Regarding the individual forms of Internet slang, this chapter is divided into the following subsections: abbreviations, pictograms and logograms, non-standard language, and other slang expressions. This

division is based mainly on the combination of the categorization provided by Know Your

Meme website, and of Crystal‘s analysis of specific features of text messaging in his book

Txting: the gr8 db8 (2008), since text messaging in considered an output of Internet-based communication for the purpose of this thesis.

Individual forms of Internet slang are introduced in the following subchapters.

Most of the selected examples of Internet slang expressions have also been featured in the Internet slang e-learning course.

2.3.1 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

Most common forms of Internet slang are abbreviations which are basically reduced or shortened versions of words (Crystal, 2008). Abbreviations are not anything new; they have been used for hundreds of years in order to save space and time in daily communication, both oral and textual, but have become much more widespread since the boom of the Internet (Lee, 2013). They are often being referred to as acronyms, which is not completely accurate, for acronyms, such as YOLO, are abbreviations formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word, while abbreviations consisting of initial letters pronounced separately are called initialisms, such as BTW (―Acronym,‖

2013; ―Initialism,‖ 2013). However, considering that Internet abbreviations are not usually pronounced, this distinction is not particularly fundamental. Lee (2013) points out that there are significant differences between traditional abbreviations and Internet

abbreviations: traditional abbreviations, such as UN (United Nations) and NHL (National

Hockey League), are mostly nouns, while Internet abbreviations, such as BRB (be right back) and LOL (laughing out loud), are phrases that in most cases describe an action or express an emotion. There are hundreds of abbreviations used in online communication, such as instant messengers, as well as chat rooms, online forums, and social networking sites: some of them are known to average Internet users, some are only known to certain sub-cultures or Internet communities. There are no rules regarding upper case or lower case, both forms are acceptable, though lower case might be used more often in order to make typing faster. Dixon (2011) distinguishes nine categories of Internet abbreviations:

greetings, e.g. HUD (How you doing?), RUOK (Are you ok?);

relationships, e.g. BF (boyfriend), GF (girlfriend), BFF (best friend forever);

mood or reaction, e.g. OMG (Oh my God!), WTF (what the fuck);

negative descriptions, e.g. BS (bullshit), FOS (full of shit);

affection, e.g. ILY (I love you) and XOXO (hugs and kisses);

closings, e.g. TTYL (Talk to you later), CU (See you);

disclaimers, e.g. AFA (as far as);

timing, e.g. B4 (before); and

others.

Some Internet abbreviations might be a combination of abbreviation and phonetic translation, such as CU. Internet abbreviations serve the same purpose as the regular abbreviations for saving time, space and effort; however, they can have different meanings in different contexts:

For example, LOL can mean ‗laugh out loud‘ when chatting with friends, but it

can mean ‗lots of love‘ when flirting with a lover, and for game lovers, LOL is

‗League of Legends‘, the most popular online game at the moment. The ability to

distinguish the different meanings of the same abbreviation is actually the ability to

place a word or a term in contexts. Therefore, in the same way as regular language,

Internet abbreviations also have a ‗structure of expectation‘ (Lee, ―What is

Internet Abbreviation?,‖ 2013).

The table below shows several of the most common abbreviations which have been featured in the e-learning course:

Table 6: Abbreviations featured in the e-course (alphabetized) Abbreviation Meaning a/s/l, asl age/sex/location afk away from keyboard aka also known as asap as soon as possible atm at the moment bf boyfriend BFF best friend forever brb be right back btw by the way fb Facebook ftw for the win FYI for your information gf girlfriend gtg got to go IDC I don‘t care IDK I don‘t know ikr I know, right? IMHO in my humble opinion irl in real life jk just kidding lmao laughing my ass off LOL laughing out loud myob my your own business np no problem nvm never mind omg Oh my God! rofl rolling on the floor laughing smh shaking my head tbh to be honest tgif thank God it‘s Friday tmi too much information ttyl talk to you later wbu? What about you? wtf what the fuck yolo you only live once

Most of these abbreviations are commonly used in general Internet-based communication, including text messaging; some are used in specific situations, for example, a/s/l is commonly used in chat rooms when talking to strangers, afk in online gaming

(UrbanDictionary.com, 2013).

Because it would be impossible to discuss all abbreviations, yet alone mention them in this thesis, I would like to at least highlight two of them which are worth mentioning:

LOL and YOLO. LOL is one of the most common abbreviations and its different meanings have already been presented above, yet most often used as the expression of amusement. In 2011, it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary as follows: ―Originally and chiefly in the language of electronic communications: ‗ha ha!‘; used to draw attention to a joke or humorous statement, or to express amusement‖ (―LOL,‖ 2013). ‗Originally and chiefly‘ are used more than appropriately in this case, for, firstly, it has been noted that the original meaning of LOL has transformed, and, secondly, LOL has also found its way into spoken English as well. As for the shift in meaning, linguist Ben Zimmerman said that

LOL had been undergoing a semantic shift, with its original humorous connotations becoming toned down or even disappearing entirely (Knibbs, 2013). In addition, Knibbs

(2013) refers to Professor Curzan‘s blog post:

LOL is now a way to flag that a message is meant to be funny (similar to JK—‗just

kidding‘) or to signal irony. LOL can also be a way to acknowledge that a writer has

received a text—a written version of a nod of the head and a smile.

This shift in meaning is reflected on the Urban Dictionary as well where, for example, the author of the entry for LOL from August 10, 2005 lists several different meanings:

Now, [LOL] is overused to the point where nobody laughs out loud when they say

it. In fact, they probably don‘t even give a shit about what you just wrote. More

accurately, the acronym ‗LOL‘ should be redefined as ‗Lack of laughter‘.

Depending on the chatter, its definition may vary. The list of its meanings includes,

but is not limited to:

1) ―I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this conversation.‖

2) ―I‘m too lazy to read what you just wrote so I‘m typing something useless

in hopes that you‘ll think I‘m still paying attention.‖

3) ―Your statement lacks even the vaguest trace of humor but I‘ll pretend

I‘m amused.‖

4) ―This is a pointless acronym I‘m sticking in my sentence just because it‘s

become so engraved into my mind that when chatting, I MUST use the

meaningless sentence-filler ‗LOL‘.‖

As Knibbs (2013) simply puts it, now LOL is more of a placeholder or a way to show that you are listening than a way to say you are laughing or you think something is funny, as shown on the example from the Urban Dictionary below:

Tom: Today was boring.

*10 minutes later*

Jane: LOL.

This shift in meaning is not only the case of LOL: for instance, BRB which stands for ‗be right back‘ is, according to an Urban Dictionary entry from December 21, 2004, ―no longer taken literally, people just say it when they are going to be gone for any amount of time, whether it be 20 seconds or 20 minutes,‖ while an entry from May 18, 2008 adds that ―it is more commonly used as an excuse to leave a conversation with a person you don‘t want to talk to anymore.‖ Knibbs (2013) sees this as the most obvious sign of Internet-speak becoming divorced from its original meaning and taking on a new definition. In addition, she also argues that the Internet is also shifting the words we use to speak to one another, not just the way we choose to communicate, which is also reflected by the growing offline

presence of LOL as a spoken word (Knibbs, 2013). In his article, Anderson (2011) reported that LOL is now

found outside of electronic contexts, however; in print, and even in spoken use,

where there often seems to be a bit more than simple abbreviation going on. The

intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of expression, and perhaps

parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or overstatement that can sometimes

appear in online discourse, while at the same time marking oneself as an ‗insider‘ au

fait with the forms of expression associated with the latest technology.

As an example, Anderson (2011) features a quote from the 2003 UK novel Freshers where two characters share this dialogue:

―Wow, man! Are you, like, really from a council estate [a public housing project]?‖

―Yep.‖

―LOL! Awesome.‖

Anderson (2011) himself finds the urge to ―LOL in public‖ an embarrassing one, yet he admits that ―after typing it so many times in response to my too-witty colleagues, it became an almost hard-wired, instinctual reaction to comedy.‖

Next abbreviation which is going to be discussed in greater detail is YOLO which stands for the phrase ‗you only live once‘ or as Judkis (2012) explains it: ―a sort of a teen interjection for ‗Carpe Diem‘.‖ Know Your Meme reports that the acronym was popularized in 2011 after being featured in the hip hop single ―The Motto‖ by Drake, and in November

2012, the Oxford American Dictionaries included it in its shortlist for the 2012 English

Word of the Year. Both Judkis (2012) and Know Your Meme point out that YOLO is especially popular as a hashtag4 on Twitter and is used to bring attention to exciting events or excuse irresponsible behaviors. See two examples below:

4 Hashtag is word or an unspaced phrase prefixed with the symbol # which provides a means of grouping messages.

Figure 2: #YOLO tweet 1

Figure 3: #YOLO tweet 2

Judkis (2012) also brings attention to the recklessness of #YOLO as pointed out by Robyn

Dexter, campus editor of the Eastern Illinois University‘s Daily Eastern News:

―When I see ‗YOLO‘ in a tweet, I know instantly that something unintelligent and

cocky is going to follow,‖ she wrote. ―There‘s nothing wrong with taking risks

in life and trying new things. I‘m totally for that. But there‘s a fine line between

living your life to the fullest and making spur-of-the-moment, completely

irrational decisions.‖

The use of YOLO has been criticized and sparked an Anti-YOLO campaign which included many parody image macros, for instance:

Figure 4: Anti-YOLO campaign image macro (knowyourmeme.com)

The strong opinions against the use of YOLO are reflected on the Urban Dictionary as well, for the most popular definitions state that YOLO is ―the dumbass‘s excuse for something stupid that they did,‖ ―one of the most annoying abbreviations ever,‖ or ―‗carpe diem‘ for stupid people.‖5 In addition, some people tend to use YOLO in spoken English: ―A friend of mine reports her children using [YOLO] out loud‖ (Leith, 2013).

The examples of LOL and YOLO demonstrate that it is possible that common abbreviations can eventually migrate from the screen to our lips (Anderson, 2011). Is it common to use Internet abbreviations in speech, though? Figure 5 shows the results of a poll conducted by GameFAQs website ―Do you ever say online abbreviations out loud?‖:

5 ―I am fairly certain that ‗YOLO‘ is ‗Carpe Diem‘ for stupid people‖ is a quote posted by actor Jack Black on Twitter that has gained a lot of popularity among Anti-YOLO campaigners.

Figure 5: GameFAQs Poll: Do you ever say online abbreviations out loud?

Unfortunately, the poll is not dated; therefore, it cannot be determined whether it reflects the situation nowadays. However, considering only 9.9% of total votes have reported using abbreviations in conversations often, it can be concluded that using online abbreviations in speech is not very common. In 2006, National Public Radio has reported that such use of abbreviations is mainly typical among teenagers who do so in order to be funny, or rather to speak their ‗own‘ language, i.e. to separate an in-group from an out-group.

On the contrary, for some people, the idea of such abbreviations used in spoken conversation seems rather horrifying. One of those people is the author of a blog post for

The Guardian featuring a list of abbreviations that he hates the most, LOL and YOLO being on the top of the list (Leith, 2013). According to Leith (2013), ―pretty much all [online abbreviations] connote one thing, which is: ‗I am a douchebag,‘‖ and he finds the fact that people say such abbreviations out loud even more irritating: people using LOL in spoken conversation is, in his opinion, ―especially banjaxing since you can‘t simultaneously say

LOL and laugh aloud unless you can laugh through your arse,‖ and people who use YOLO out loud should stop as well.

As for the use of online abbreviations in spoken conversations, it has been shown that there are groups of people with different opinions, yet it is not possible to determine which tendencies are going to prevail in the future. As for writing, it has been demonstrated that abbreviations are nothing new: they have existed for years, and most probably will continue to exist and be used. As Crystal (2008) suggests, we can either start

a collection of our own online abbreviations, or follow the new trends regarding form, meaning, and use, or just simply ‗stick‘ to the most common ones. Abbreviations are not going to disappear.

2.3.2 PICTOGRAMS AND LOGOGRAMS

Pictograms and logograms are most noticeable features of text orthography, i.e. the use of single letters, numerals, and typographic symbols to represent words, parts of words, or even noises associated with actions (Crystal, 2008). Same as abbreviations, not pictograms, nor logograms are considered a novelty – on the contrary, Crystal (2008) points out that they have been part of linguistic history. Pictograms are visual shapes or pictures used to represent objects or concepts; in Internet-based communication, they take form of so called emoticons or smileys, where the meaning is entirely a function of the shape of the symbols (Crystal, 2008). They are usually read sideways, with the head to the left, e.g.

:-) or :) represent ‗smile‘; however, nowadays different IM services, websites, operating systems for smartphones, etc., provide their own graphic design of emoticons (see Figure 6 for a list of emoticons used on Facebook chat as an example). Emoticons have not been included in the e-learning course, but they have been mentioned as a feature of Internet slang.

Figure 6: List of Facebook emoticons

Logograms, on the other hand, are graphic units used to represent words, parts of words, or noises associated with actions; not the visual shape, but the pronunciation is the critical thing, for instance: b represents ‗be‘, 2 represents ‗to‘, x represents ‗kiss‘ (Crystal,

2008). As for the previously mentioned examples, b and 2, they can also be referred to as examples of phonetic translation or letter/number homophones (knowyourmeme.com; Jonge

& Kemp, 2012). Logograms can also be used in combination, for example, letters and numbers, or even numbers and phonetic translation:

b4 before

2day today

2moro tomorrow

xxx kisses

zzz sleeping

The table below shows several of the most common logograms which have been featured in the e-learning course:

Table 7: Logograms featured in the e-course (alphabetized) Logogram Meaning @ at 2 to 2moro tomorrow 2nite tonight 4 for b be b4 before cu see you d8 date gr8 great l8 late l8r later r are u you ur your w8 wait x kiss

2.3.3 NON-STANDARD LANGUAGE

The following specific features of Internet slang were all categorized as non-standard language, for they reflect various ways how Internet slang differs from

Standard English, particularly from its written form. The division of the categories is not rigid, since some of them tend to overlap.

Non-standard spellings

Crystal (2008) distinguishes among misspellings unconscious and deliberate: while deliberate misspellings are simply based on poor language skills, or are typos which happen from time to time, the deviant spellings which occur in Internet slang ―give the impression of people consciously manipulating the writing system, rather than making inadvertent errors‖ (p. 48). According to Crystal (2008), the list of non-standard spellings is not very great, but they are certainly distinctive and can also include representations of informal or regional speech. In addition, some of them are part of English literary tradition that they have been given entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, such as cos (since 1828), wot (1829), luv (1898), thanx (1836), and ya (1941). Furthermore, Know Your Meme argues that intentional misspellings may have stemmed from space restriction on instant messaging and SMS services; however, some of these misspellings have come from accidental typographical errors that have been embraced by the community, such as Teh, an error when typing The.

The table below shows several of the common non-standard spellings which have been featured in the e-learning course:

Table 8: Non-standard spellings featured in the e-course (alphabetized) Non-standard spelling Meaning da the dunno don‘t know gotta got to luv love skool school sry sorry thx thanks wanna want to wassup what‘s up wotcha what are you ya you

Shortenings

Shortenings are types of abbreviations where a word is shortened by omitting one of its meaningful elements, usually at the end, as in exam(ination), but sometimes

at the beginning of the word, as in (tele)phone (Crystal, 2008). Jonge and Kemp (2012) have reported that high school and university students use shortenings such as (be)cause and

(e)xcellent when texting. Shortening is not a novel linguistic practice either, and Crystal

(2008) feels that this is ―a very natural development for this technology‖ (p. 51).

Omitted letters

Crystal (2008) observes that in text messaging and instant messaging people often shorten words by:

omitting letters from the middle: often called contractions; if all vowels are removed

from a token word, it is called disemvoweling6;

dropping a letter at the end: often called clippings; if g is omitted from -ing endings,

it is called g-clipping.

Vowels, final consonants, and ‗silent‘ consonants can be omitted; moreover, double medial consonants are reduced to singletons (Crystal, 2008). These processes are often combined, for example:

pls please

msg message

comin coming

txtin texting

xlnt excellent

In addition, Crystal (2008) notes that several words which were often contracted in older dictionaries no longer are, and thus it is likely that many of the current contractions will disappear and new ones will appear.

6 Disemvoweling and its related verb disemvowel are a play on the word disembowel, meaning ―to kill someone by cutting open their stomach and removing their intestines‖ (―Disemvoweling,‖ 2007).

Leetspeak

According to Know Your Meme, Leetspeak, or 1337speak, an alternative alphabet that consists of replacing a letter by its closest figure‘s look-alike, or by using various keyboard signs such as +, (, [, /, _ and more to recreate that letter. This form of Internet slang is quite unique because it cannot truly be spoken out loud nor can it successfully be handwritten; it is an Internet-based language reliant on the keyboard, and it has much room for creativity (Thrid, 2002). For example, vowels are replaced by numbers, and there are several grammatical oddities, such as instead of using ‗s‘ to make something plural, a ‗z‘ is used instead; furthermore, punctuation is usually left out (Thrid, 2002). Some examples from Leetspeak vocabulary which might be known to common Internet users are featured below:

w00t: Derived from ‗hoot‘, this is defined as ‗yay‘; it can be used, for example, upon

victory or, possibly, the release and procurement of a new video card.

d00d: Dude; an expression of comrade, or just used to address a random person

online.

n00b: Short for noobie, misspelling of newbie; someone who is new to something,

or just not very good at it.

Thrid (2002) also points out that Leetspeak is ―looked down upon in most forums and chat rooms,‖ and the best place to use it is ―in a brief expression of excitement, when you are just playing around or in a supreme example of your geeky prowess.‖ Leetspeak, as a very specific form of Internet slang known to certain Internet subcultures, was not included in the scope of the e-learning course.

In addition to the above mentioned forms of non-standard language, it should be noted that capitalization and apostrophes tend to be omitted in text messaging and instant messaging.

2.3.4 SLANG WORDS AND PHRASES

This category of Internet slang might be rather difficult to specify. Basically, other forms of Internet slang which cannot be linked to any of the previous categories will be discussed in this subchapter. There are many expressions and phrases which spread from person to person via the Internet. In this context, we talk about so called Internet memes7.

On the Internet, a meme can be an idea, style, action, or just a word or phrase which spreads in the form of an image, hyperlink, video, picture, website, or hashtag (#); especially Internet memes in the form of image macros, which are images with catch-phrases placed on top of them, are quite popular (Flamand, 2008). Flamand (2008) points out that Internet memes are made for humorous effect and it is often difficult to determine who started a certain meme or who created this or that image macro. As for some specific examples, Internet meme is when you reply to a joke by writing ‗lol‘, or when you post a picture of yourself planking (knowyourmeme.com). Planking is a great example of an Internet meme: planking is an activity which involves lying face down with arms to the sides in unusual public spaces, photographing the scene and sharing the image online (knowyourmeme.com).

Figure 7: Examples of planking

7 Memes, a term coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, are cultural traits which spread from person to person by imitating the concept; examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches, etc. (Flamand, 2008).

According to Know Your Meme, an online database of Internet memes and other Internet phenomena, planking started to gain popularity in March 2011, when the pro-rugby player

David ‗Wolfman‘ Williams planked after a try during the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles vs

Newcastle Knights game held on March 27, 2011, and since then the planking game quickly caught on, being endorsed by various Hollywood celebrities and pop stars as well.

However, it is important to note that Internet memes are often changeable and only a few of them tend to ‗be around‘ for a longer period of time; rather, a certain meme can be trending for a few months, and then become forgotten (see the graph showing the web search for planking over time below).

Figure 8: Planking - web search (knowyourmeme.com)

Internet memes are an important part of Internet subcultures and communities. However, not all expressions and phrases spread as Internet memes can be classified as Internet slang. As Fein (2011) points out, the distinction between slang and colloquialism is not at all clear, which makes it rather difficult to specify which expression is slang and which is a colloquialism. Furthermore, many catch-phrases also spread in the form of Internet memes, yet they should not considered slang as has been established in Chapter 2.1. One example of such a catch-phrase is ‗Challenge accepted‘ which is an expression that signals that the speaker is willing to try completing a difficult task (knowyourmeme.com). Know Your

Meme reports that it began as a catch-phrase for the character Barney Stinson in the television sitcom How I Met Your Mother; then it spread on the Internet, mainly in the form of a comic with a comic character illustrated as a stick figure with crossed arms and a smug facial expression (see examples below).

Figure 9: ‘Challenge accepted’ examples

However, ‗Challenge accepted‘ can also be used as a phrase in a ‗regular‘ conversation (see

Figure 10).

Figure 10: ‘Challenge accepted’ text message (knowyourmeme.com)

Based on these examples, it seems that the meaning, or perhaps rather the rendition, of this phrase has developed in the online world as it has been adopted by the Internet community. Therefore, it appears that some catch-phrases might develop into colloquialisms, and this is not only the case of catch-phrases, but it relates to other slang words and phrases as well. However, taking into account that certain Internet communities use such words and phrases to show that they are ‗part of the gang‘, could such expressions be possibly considered slang after all? The distinction is definitely not that clear, and this subject is certainly open to discussion.

As for expressions which are related to Internet culture, many of them can be considered idioms, i.e. expressions whose complete meanings can only be acknowledged and understood because of or in relation to the Internet; Know Your Meme features the following examples of Internet slang idioms:

While some of them are used as synonymous of another word, the way Over 9000

can be viewed as a replacement in expressing lots or bucketload the same way win

and fail are respectively meaning success and failure, others have their own

meaning, such as DERP as a way to signify stupidity, or also Fag as a suffix which

has a totally different meaning and doesn‘t necessarily address homosexuals

in a derogatory way.

In addition, if words or expressions are new, or a new meaning is used for existing words, then such expressions are being referred to as neologisms or, as Crystal (2008) calls them, genuine novelties. Both Crystal (2008) and Smith (2011) note that neologisms are often results of language play.

The table below shows four expressions which have been introduced in the e-learning course: they can be considered Internet slang since they are often used in informal Internet-based communication, and also spread as Internet memes.

Table 9: Internet slang expressions featured in the e-course (knowyourmeme.com) Expression Meaning Example

used to point out

a person‘s fail mistake (epic fail) complete and

total failure

a type of style or

presence that shows swag confidence and is

sometimes interpreted as

arrogance

relationship in which

one member wishes to

become romantically friend zone involved while the other

would like to be friends

only

is a gesture

of nonverbal-communic

ation that expresses

dismay and is often facepalm a reaction toward

someone‘s momentary

lapse of logic, judgment,

or memory

These expressions are often used in informal online interactions; some are used in a specific way, such as facepalm:

can be written *facepalm* to demonstrate an action, e.g.:

Today I locked my keys in my car. Again. *facepalm*

can also be posted as an image: one of the most popular facepalm images around is

one of Captain Jean-Luc Picard from Star Trek the Next Generation, clutching his

face in disbelief:

Figure 11: Facepalm examples (knowyourmeme.com)

Others, such as swag, can be often found in the form of a hashtag on Twitter or Instagram

(#swag):

Figure 12: Swag example (knowyourmeme.com)

In conclusion, all the above mentioned forms of Internet slang are most often used in informal Internet-based forms of communication, i.e. in text messaging, instant messaging, chat rooms, on social networking sites, etc. Some expressions, such as abbreviations and non-standard language, are used in plain text, while others, mostly idioms, can be accompanied by an image, for example. Many of these forms of slang have existed in English language for decades, sometimes even centuries, and even though

Internet slang has contributed to the creation of many new expressions, it should not be considered that much revolutionary regarding slang formation processes. However, the medium of the Internet has revolutionized the way of how language is spread and recorded, which will be discussed in the following chapter.

2.4 THE CODIFICATION OF INTERNET SLANG

In traditional lexicography, there are two general approaches: prescriptivism and descriptivism. Prescriptivists believe that one variety of language has an inherently higher value than others, and thus should be imposed on the whole of the speech community; it is an authoritarian view, ―espoused for English in the middle decades of the eighteenth century, and propounded especially in relation to usage in grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation‖ (Crystal, 2006, 3 Finding an identity). Crystal (2006) further explains that the favored language variety is usually a version of the standard written language which most closely reflects literary style, and that those who speak or write in this variety are said to be using language ‗correctly‘; those who do not are said to be using it ‗incorrectly‘.

Descriptivists, on the other hand, consider themselves linguistic authorities and ―look

down on the narrow-mindedness and misinformed purism of prescriptivists‖; they rather describe the variations in usage found within a language, and explain why variant forms exist (Smith, 2011). While in traditional English lexicography the prescriptivist approach has been favored with trained lexicographers being in charge of selection, meaning, and illustration of words, Internet technologies have allowed a new type of dictionary:

―dictionary that is built by the collaboration of contributing end-users, allowing users who are not trained lexicographers to engage in the actual making of dictionaries‖ (Damaso &

Cotter, 2007). One example of such online collaborative dictionaries is a popular online slang dictionary, the Urban Dictionary, which stands as an alternative to the prescriptivist tradition, for it records ephemeral everyday spoken language and represents popular views of meaning (Damaso & Cotter, 2007).

While Thorne (2007) argues that much slang is never written down, the emergence of collaborative dictionaries has definitely changed this situation, for the access to and formulation of the lexis have been equalized, i.e. anyone is authorized to add an entry

(Damaso & Cotter, 2007). Therefore, entries also challenge the traditional lexicography, for they often include non-standard definitions based on witty wordplay, and some of them tend to lack objectivity or factuality, as has been demonstrated in Chapter 2.1 when discussing definitions of ‗slang‘ featured on the Urban Dictionary (Smith, 2011). Urban

Dictionary users review others‘ definitions and decide to recommend them for deletion or to add their own (Damaso & Cotter, 2007). Smith (2011) adds that while most entries fade away, some of them ―reveal themselves as mots justes,‖ and are moved to the Oxford

English Dictionary, such as LOL (p. 47).

Regarding Internet slang, the Urban Dictionary is especially relevant, since there are not many dictionaries providing definitions of Internet slang expressions. Damaso and

Cotter (2007) note that as a vocabulary repository, Urban Dictionary stores ―the words of contemporary popular culture, the retention and application of which empower UD

users with a culturally relevant tool to communicate, especially in other online domains such as chat rooms, discussion boards, and blogs‖ (p. 21). Damaso and Cotter (2007) also argue that users visit the Urban Dictionary in order to determine how people use the language and often find the information credible and even authoritative, thus the notion of what the contributors themselves consider slang to be evolves.

Urban Dictionary definitely serves as an interesting tool for learning the meaning of slang expressions, since there are not many dictionaries that comprehensive and that up-to-date. Regarding the research among English teachers and Czech learners of English

(for details, see Chapter 3.1), Urban Dictionary was used regularly or sometimes by 54% of teachers, while about 68% of students did not use it or did not know it at all. Among other methods of learning the meaning of Internet slang expressions, both teachers and learners have reported to use the Google search (about 80%), various online dictionaries (about

50%), or Wikipedia. Both also tend to figure out the meaning from the context by themselves (teachers more often than learners). Learners have reported that they rarely ask their English teachers or native speakers about the meaning, and rather ask their friends.

2.5 INTERNET SLANG…A BAD LANGUAGE?

Not surprisingly, there have been concerns about the bad influence of the Internet on language, especially regarding non-standard spelling which appears to be quite common.

One would assume that the reason for this is most probably the need for fast communication, or the limitation by characters. However, neither of these reasons seems to be completely accurate.

In his paper, Eisenstein (2013) is concerned about bad language of the Internet and discusses why language in social media is so different from our other corpora. Therefore, he examines the following explanations for non-standard spelling on the Internet which more than half of the respondents agreed upon in a survey of laypeople: ―people are unsure

of the correct spellings,‖ ―it‘s faster,‖ ―it‘s become the norm,‖ and ―people want to represent their own dialects and/or accents‖ (Eisenstein, 2013). One would expect that illiteracy, i.e. the incapability or unawareness of the authors of the non-standard language in social media to use more standard language, or length limits, i.e. the limit of 140 characters for each message on Twitter, might be the primary factors driving the use of shortened forms; however, Eisenstein (2013) proves one‘s expectations wrong: based on his findings,

―empirical research suggests that many users of bad language are capable of using more traditional forms,‖ and, in general, ―there is little evidence that bad language results from an inability to speak anything else.‖ As for the limitation by characters, Eisenstein (2013) has conducted a research on the premises that Twitter users are likely to use shortenings, such as ‗u‘ instead of ‗you‘, most frequently in messages that are near the 140-character limit. Therefore, the author has computed the average length of messages containing both standard words and their non-standard alternatives while focusing on five non-standard shortenings: ‗ur‘ instead of ‗your‘ and ‗you‘re‘, ‗wit‘ instead of ‗with‘, ‗goin‘ instead of ‗going‘, ‗kno‘ instead of ‗know‘ and ‗bout‘ instead of ‗about‘ (Eisenstein, 2013). Quite surprisingly, the research results show that the non-standard forms tend to be used in shorter messages – not in long messages near the 140 character limit, and that this difference in the length of the messages is greater than the saving of one or two characters offered by the use of the shortened form. Nevertheless, Eisenstein (2013) admits that length limitations ―might indirectly cause word shortenings: for example, by legitimizing shortened forms or causing authors to develop a habit of preferring them.‖

According to Eisenstein (2013), the following aspects play a role regarding the use of non-standard language in Internet-based communication:

text input affordances, i.e. whether standard keyboards or predictive entry

on mobile devices are used;

pragmatics, i.e. emoticons, phrasal abbreviations, and pragmatic lengthening (as

discussed in Chapter 2.2.2);

social variables, i.e. age, gender, race, and location.

The aspect of social variables is definitely the most interesting one. Eisenstein (2013) argues that many of the features that characterize bad language have strong associations with specific social variables; in some cases, these associations mirror linguistic variables known from speech (e.g. transcription of phonological variables like g-dropping), while in other cases, new lexical items acquire strong associations with geographical areas and demographic groups. In general, ―the use of non-standard language is often seen as a form of identity work, signaling authenticity, solidarity, or resistance to norms imposed from above‖ (Eisenstein, 2013, 2.5 Social variables). Indeed, there is quite enough evidence that suggests that the use of ‗bad language‘ in Internet-based communication is often a question of social identity more than anything else (not taking into account the cases of illiteracy and unconscious misspellings). For instance, Baron (2008) suggests that using non-standard language gives an impressions of ‗being cool‘, especially among younger teenagers:

―the fifteen-year-old son of a colleague admitted that he intentionally included abbreviations so he wouldn‘t look like a nerd‖ (p.70). Another interesting example is the

Twitter of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, an American actor and director in his early 30s, who runs his personal Twitter account, @hitRECordJoe. Here are several examples of his tweets:

Figure 13: @hitRECordJoe tweet examples (twitter.com/hitRECordJoe)

From these tweets, it seems obvious that Gordon-Levitt knows how to spell correctly; his grammar is mostly according to the book, he uses punctuation, and does not omit capitalization, or apostrophes. Occasional abbreviations, such as doc or w/, are most likely used because of the character limit. Non-standard spelling of ‗you‘, ya, used in the last tweet probably serves as a way of establishing familiarity or intimacy with his Twitter followers.

However, in general, there is hardly any bad language. In contrast, it is interesting to take a look at a different Twitter account, @DonJon, which is an account which allegedly belongs to a man named Jon Martello. Here are several examples of his tweets:

Figure 14: @DonJon tweet examples (twitter.com/DonJon)

This account definitely shows all sings of bad language that the critics have been so concerned about: non-standard spelling, no punctuation, no capitalization. Then, it might be surprising for you to learn that @DonJon is administered by Gordon-Levitt as well. Jon

Martello is a fictional character from Gordon-Levitt‘s film, and this account has been created as a part of the film promotion. ‗What is up with the bad language then?‘ Jon

Martello has a different social identity from Gordon-Levitt – they might be of the same age, yet they are from different social backgrounds, and most importantly, they want to present themselves differently. This example shows that in this case the use of bad language is about social identity more than anything else, and can be applied to other situations when Internet users want to be perceived by others in a certain way.

However, this does not answer the question whether we should be concerned about bad Internet language ‗infecting‘ Standard English, especially since some of the expressions have found its way into everyday spoken conversations. For instance,

McCrum is seriously concerned about the state of written language in the digital age.

On the other hand, Pool (2013) is less worried about bad writing on the web, arguing that there is a lot of good writing too and that thanks to the Internet people are writing more than ever before in history, and to McCrums concerns about Internet English debasing the language, Pool responds by simple: ―Not IMHO.‖ Also Crystal sees the Internet as a thing that will offer ways to supplement English rather than seriously disrupt or supplant it, and while there have been some interesting novel informalities in orthography, such as punctuation minimalism, and the arrival of emoticons, there have not been many noticeable changes in speech, adding that ―the occasional additional spoken abbreviation

(such as LOL) is hardly a significant effect‖ (Knibbs, 2013). Furthermore, Crystal sees the positivity of Internet slang expressions in extending the range of the language, the expressiveness of the language, and the richness of the language, and he even believes that William Shakespeare would love that (National Public Radio, 2006). While Crystal is not very concerned about significant changes which might result from the influence of the

Internet on language, Lee (2013) believes that Internet language will further impact the conventional language, will become accepted, and will initiate a revolution in language

education as well. We can only wait and see what the future brings. However, Lee (2013) makes a good point when he argues that since the fusion of Internet language and daily language is unavoidable, we should rather address the question of how to mediate the conflicts between Internet language and conventional language than to continue with the meaningless debate whether the Internet benefits or damages the existing language.

This is certainly an issue which should be addressed in future linguistic debates.

3 INTERNET SLANG IN RELATION TO ELT

As has already been discussed, Internet linguistics is a developing field and not all areas of Internet language have been researched yet. However, the spread of the Internet makes Internet slang available to anyone who can access the Internet, and therefore,

English language learners are likely to encounter this language variety. Since Internet is often a part of our everyday communication nowadays, similar to telephoning, this issue raises questions in relation to ELT: If we teach students how to make a phone call in

English, should we teach them how to chat or text in English? Should we introduce students to high-usage slang expressions or should we let them learn it themselves through their own experience? Most importantly, should we teach slang a.k.a. the ‗bad‘ language?

Since it is not possible to provide a universal answer to these questions, this chapter at least aims to present different attitudes towards the teaching and learning of Internet slang.

The question of including any slang in language teaching is a subject of discussion.

Different teachers have different opinions on whether slang has its place in the classroom.

Fein (2011) lists the following reasons why teachers tend to avoid the teaching of slang:

1. Slang illiteracy; language teachers‘ limitations in the area of slang.

2. High perishability of many slang terms.

3. Concerns that students will use slang inappropriately.

4. Believe that slang belongs to an area of cultural experience that lies outside

the limits of the classroom.

Fein (2011) himself, however, advocates the teaching of slang to students, for he believes that ―familiarity with high-usage slang terms will significantly widen [students‘] comprehension, enrich their speech, and provide them with colorful and emphatic means of expression‖ (p. 100). Based on his experience as the teacher of French language

in the United States, Fein (2011) proposes the following guidelines regarding the teaching of slang:

1. Terms that have only come into usage very recently are best avoided.

2. Terms that are generally considered obscene or offensive should be

avoided.

3. Terms that have generally fallen out of usage should be avoided.

4. Useful terms that are likely to be heard in everyday conversations, on

television, or in films should be selected.

5. Students should be encouraged to avail themselves of native speakers,

online dictionaries, and various Internet sources.

6. Teachers should help students develop a sense of linguistic boundaries so

that they will understand when it is appropriate or inappropriate to use

certain slang terms, at the same time helping them develop an appreciation

for the ways on which language is enriched by slang terms, many of which

are rather whimsical, humorous, even poetic.

(pp. 100-101)

Without a doubt, the most effective way to learn slang is by experiencing it firsthand; nevertheless, Fein (2011) also believes that including slang in language teaching expands students‘ linguistic horizons and better prepares them for their own real-life experience.

As for Internet slang, the difference is that learners do not need to travel abroad to experience it, but most likely they encounter such slang expressions by themselves anytime they go online. Furthermore, they can also learn the meaning of Internet slang expressions rather easily, for instance by looking them up on Urban Dictionary. This also means that students who usually come across such expressions simply learn them, either out of necessity or curiosity. On the other hand, it would seem rather pointless for students who do not communicate on the Internet in English language to learn such expressions.

Basically, students know what they need to learn in order to communicate online, i.e. they know whether they are going to use such Internet slang expressions or not. Their real-life experience is ongoing. This is quite different from the situation when teachers present slang expressions used in everyday spoken English, for students do not really know whether they are going to use such expressions until they experience it in real life, e.g. talking to native speakers. Thus, the role of teacher regarding the teaching of Internet slang seems to be rather limited, or even unnecessary. Is there a point in including Internet slang into ELT, or does Internet slang belong to an area of cultural experience that lies outside the limits of the classroom? In order to explore this issue, a research among English teachers in the Czech Republic and Czech learners of English has been conducted.

3.1 THE RESEARCH INTO INTERNET SLANG IN RELATION TO ELT

For my research, I created questionnaires for both teachers and students in order to:

1. examine their familiarity with several high-usage Internet slang expressions,

2. research their attitudes towards teaching/learning Internet slang, and its

incorporation into English language teaching.

Both questionnaires were made in a Google e-form. Teacher questionnaires were spread by email and via social networks among teachers of English in the Czech Republic. Student questionnaires were spread among learners of English aged 12 to 35 (i.e. teenagers and young adults), for they were considered to be a group of learners most likely to be affected or interested in Internet slang. Student questionnaires were also spread by the means of email and social networks. In addition, part of the questionnaires was handed out among secondary school students at Gymnázium, Brno, Křenová, 36.

Both questionnaires consisted of the following types of questions: open-ended questions, multiple choice, rating scale questions and two-option questions. Each

questionnaire was introduced by a short text explaining the purpose of the research and giving short instructions on how to fill the questionnaires in (for more details, see

Appendices 1 and 2). Respondents were asked to state their gender and age. Besides, teachers were asked about the number of years of teaching English. This data were collected in order to see if the answers differed based on any of the above mentioned aspects.

Analysis of collected data

The data were collected during October and November 2013. In total, 35 teachers filled in the teacher questionnaire, whereas 265 students filled the other one.

The questionnaires were running on the Google web site.

Student questionnaire

In total, there were 265 students who filled in the questionnaire, out of which there were 120 men and 145 women. The average age was 21 and the span was from the age of 12 to 35. The levels of English of the respondents were as follows: Elementary (6%),

Pre-Intermediate (20%), Intermediate (26%), Upper-Intermediate (18%), Advanced (19%), and Proficient (11%). 69% of students were used to chatting or texting in English language.

Students were given the questionnaire in Czech in order to make it accessible for students of all levels of English. For the purposes of the thesis and reference, the survey was translated into English.

Teacher questionnaire

In total, there were 35 teachers who filled in the questionnaire, out of which there were 10 men and 25 women. The average age was 31 and the span was large – from the age of 24 to 65. 80% of teachers were non-native speakers. 83% of teachers were used to chatting or texting in English language. Unlike the one for students, this one was distributed in English.

3.1.1 WHAT LEARNERS KNOW VERSUS WHAT TEACHERS KNOW

One of the aims of the survey was to examine the knowledge of Internet slang expressions among teachers and among Czech learners of English. Both teachers and students were asked to provide the meaning of 20 common Internet slang expressions

(abbreviations, logograms, slang words), and subsequently, their answers were compared in order to detect any patterns and to verify whether it could be possible that learners are more familiar with Internet slang than teachers.

The results of teacher questionnaire showed 80% of teachers were familiar with more than half of the expressions, and 67% out of the 80% were familiar with at least 15 expressions out of 20. The research showed that one of the factors was age: the average age of teachers who were familiar with more than half of the expressions was 28, while the average age of teachers who were familiar with less than half of the expressions was 42.

Moreover, the results showed that teachers from the second group were less familiar with the mentioned websites, or were less likely to visit them; for instance, none of them was familiar with the Urban Dictionary. In addition, 42% of the second group was not used to chatting or texting in English language at all. The length of teaching experience was not relevant regarding the familiarity with Internet slang expressions, for the average length of teaching experience was 5.5 years in the first group, and 18.5 years in the second group.

The results of student questionnaire showed that 55% of students were familiar with more than half of the expressions, and about 47% out of the 55% were familiar with at least 15 expressions out of 20. The research showed that one of the factors regarding knowledge of Internet slang expressions was the level of English: in the group of students who were familiar with more than half of the expressions, 75% had their English at level

Upper-Intermediate or higher, while in the second group, i.e. students who were familiar with less than half of the expressions, 85% was at Intermediate level of lower. As for the age of students, the average age was 22 in the first group and 19 in the second

group. While in case of English native speakers, teenagers are more likely to use Internet slang, and thus they are expected to be more familiar with it than older age groups, the fact that English language is the second or foreign language for the respondents needs to be considered. The level of English of younger learners is usually lower compared to older learners (since most Czechs begin learning English when they start school, then, logically, learners in their 20s tend to be more advanced), which also corresponds with the fact that the average number of years of studying English was 12.5 in the first group and 9 in the second group. Therefore, age was not such a determining factor in this context, especially taking into account that teenagers and young adults have been selected as the target groups of this survey. However, the level of English and thus the length of studying English mattered. Furthermore, the results showed, as previously in case of teachers, that students from the second group were less familiar with the mentioned websites, or were less likely to visit them. In addition, men proved to be more familiar with the websites than women, resulting in 53% of men in the first group and only 35% of men in the second group. In total, about 49% of students were able to give examples of more Internet slang expressions.

Teachers‘ answers and students‘ answers regarding the meaning of selected Internet slang expressions are compared in Table 10 below:

Figure 15: Research legend

Table 10: Familiarity with high-usage Internet slang expressions – teachers’ answers vs. students’ answers

Internet slang Teachers’ answers Students’ answers expression

2% 3% 3% 3% 14%

BTW

91% 81%

3% 3%0% 1% 11% 4%

LOL

84% 94%

12% 17% 0% 0%

13% TTYL 54% 34%

70%

14% 0% 28% 34% 40% LMAO

52% 1% 31%

8% 17% 29% 20% 7% 45% ATM

31% 43%

3%0% 22%

0% TGIF 49% 48% 13% 65%

3% 14% 9% 11% 1%

FYI 53% 35%

74%

11% 12% 3% 1%

12%

TMI 20%

66% 75%

20% 20%

0% 43% 2% YOLO 51%

29% 35%

8% 0% 15%

29% 1%

44% IMHO

40% 63%

3% 3%0% 17%

32% 0%

ASAP

51% 94%

0% 4% 1% 17%

39% howru

56%

83%

3% 3%0% 2%0% 1%

pls

94% 97%

6% 0%3% 3% 1% 19%

77% 91%

3% 3%0% 6% 2% 19%

2nite

73% 94%

11% 0%3% 5% 2%

37%

l8r

56%

86%

0% 6% 8% 2%

38% 46% gl

46% 54%

6% 3% 3% 8% 1%

44% dunno

47%

88%

20% 22% 25% 29%

0% facepalm 2%

51% 51%

11% 15% 0% 17% 29%

4% epic fail

60% 64%

Overall, the results showed that teachers were more familiar with the meaning of the selected Internet slang expressions than students. However, there were a few exceptions, and those were the following: YOLO, pls, gl, epic fail (in addition, teachers and students scored the same on facepalm). One of the possible explanations for this can be that

YOLO, epic fail, and facepalm are spread via Internet memes, especially in the form of image macros, which are quite popular among teenagers and young adults. As for pls and gl, this is not clear; however, based on my own experience, I have seen these expressions to be used in these forms in Czech language, as btw is sometimes used, which might suggest that these terms have become part of Czech Internet slang. Unfortunately, there are no specific data to support this presumption. In general, based on the survey, the following factors can be established as determining regarding familiarity with Internet slang expressions:

Age

English proficiency

Participation in Internet culture

Teachers‘ advantage was their English proficiency, which could, for instance, help them in guessing the correct meaning of the logograms, since it makes them more linguistically sensitive and capable. Age, on the other hand, was an advantage for students, since teenagers and young adults are age groups which are most familiar with Internet communities and websites associated with Internet slang. Nevertheless, neither English proficiency, nor age could outweigh the most important factor: participation in Internet culture, mainly Internet-based communication. For instance, one of the teachers, a 65-year-old native speaker with 45 years of teaching experience who communicates online by email only and does not visit any of the mentioned websites except for YouTube, has been able to identify the meaning of only 4 expressions out of 20. On the contrary, a 24-year-old Proficient learner who communicates via several outputs (email, social networking, instant messaging, text messaging) and visits 7 out of 12 mentioned websites,

has been able to provide the correct meaning of all the Internet slang expressions.

In conclusion, it cannot be established that teachers are generally more familiar with

Internet slang than learners of English. Instead, the three above mentioned factors need to be considered as determining regarding familiarity with Internet slang.

3.1.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCORPORATING INTERNET SLANG INTO ELT

The second aim of the survey was to research attitudes of teachers and students towards teaching/learning Internet slang, and its incorporation into ELT.

As for students, 13% thought that it was important to know expressions used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging; 71% thought that it was useful. Some students pointed out that the knowledge of Internet slang expressions was useful for everyday communication, and that it was good to know the meaning of the words. 9% of students considered the knowledge of Internet slang expressions to be unimportant, while 3% thought that it was meaningless. One student felt that such expressions degraded English language.

Teacher questionnaire showed similar results: 14% of teachers thought that it is important for English language learners to know such expressions, while 71% thought that it was useful, and only 2% thought that it was unimportant. The rest considered it interesting, or pointed out that it was useful for young learners. One teacher expressed her opinion that it was ―important if that‘s what they want to do, not important if they aren‘t going to text in English‖.

As for the question whether students would welcome learning Internet slang expressions in their English lessons, their responses were mainly positive: over 60% of students would welcome it (42% would prefer focusing on high-usage expressions). 15% of students felt that there were more important subjects that should be taught in English

lessons, and 9% of students preferred to learn Internet slang expressions by themselves.

Only 3% of students were not interested in learning them (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Students’ responses regarding incorporating Internet slang expressions into ELT

Yes, definitely 21%

Yes, but only a few high-usage ones 42%

No, I'm not interested 3%

No, I don't think I would use them 1% No, I think that there are more important things that should be taught 15%

No, I prefer to look them up online by myself 9%

I don't know 3%

Other 6%

Students‘ individual opinions quite varied. While some students would welcome learning

Internet slang expressions in their English lessons, there were others who did not consider it appropriate or necessary to be taught at schools. Those who were in favor of Internet slang in English lessons would mostly include it as an additional material for those who would be interested in the topic, especially young learners. In their opinion, the level of English needs to be taken into account as well. Students who were against including

Internet slang in English lessons argued that most people learn such expressions by themselves on the Internet, and that lessons should be focused on the teaching of Standard

English. Some students were concerned about the speed of change of Internet slang, which results in many slang expressions to be falling out of usage. One of the students thought that the teaching of Internet slang could lead into its overuse or inappropriate use. Another

student expressed his doubts whether it was appropriate to teach and then test Internet slang.

As for teachers, their responses to the question whether they would consider teaching Internet slang expressions in their English lessons were mainly positive: over 70% of teachers would consider it. The whole variety of teachers‘ responses is featured in the graph below (see Figure 17). Majority of teachers (46%) would focus on high-usage

Internet slang expressions.

Figure 17: Teachers’ responses regarding incorporating Internet slang expressions into ELT

Yes, definitely 27%

Yes, but only a few high-usage ones 46% No, I don't think that my students would use them 2% No, I think that there are more important things to focus on 10% No, I think it is better if students learn such expressions by themselves 2%

No, I don't think it is appropriate 2%

I don't know 5%

Other 6%

Some teachers argued that in order to include Internet slang into ELT their students‘ level of English and their age need to be considered. Some of them would consider incorporating such expressions into their lessons; however, they would consider doing so provided the following:

―I would consider integrating the expressions into a lesson, but not actively

teaching, then testing them. Also, I would only consider these with advanced

learners or with a huge emphasis on the proper use (i.e. probably not a good idea to

message one‘s boss ―C U l8r‖).‖

―If I am asked I am happy to explain (if I know) but can‘t really imagine a lesson

where I‘d teach it. Especially to mixed groups of students...‖

Other teachers considered the teaching of Internet slang in their English lessons as an opportunity to motivate their students:

―I think it is important to a) get students interested in English and b) allow them to

communicate in real time and real world situations so internet slang is I think useful

and appropriate.‖

―I think it‘s useful to teach Ss Internet slang because if nothing else, it may motivate

them to find friends to communicate in English and thus improve their proper

English as well. However, I‘d only consider doing this at a certain level (let‘s say

intermediate upwards).‖

Teachers who were not that open to the idea of Internet slang in their lessons argued as follows:

―I only teach slang if the student asks about it. It isn‘t important. There is so much

garbage on the internet and it isn‘t my responsibility to plan it into my lessons.‖

―Older people do not usually come across such slang expressions and do not want

to learn them, because they do not need it. Young teenagers usually use such

expressions regularly in online activities and are familiar with them - no need to

teach it, perhaps only make sure they know the right meaning.‖

On the whole, it is safe to say that the issue of Internet slang in relation to ELT is a moot question which has its opponents as well as its advocates. On the one hand, it is without discussion that the best way to learn Internet slang expressions is through learners‘ real-life experience. On the other hand, introducing students to Internet slang might be an interesting opportunity to motivate them by showing them the possibilities of online

communication and get them interested in English. If we were to follow the middle course, the previously mentioned guidelines introduced by Fein can be applied to the teaching of Internet slang as well. Therefore, teachers could select a few high-usage Internet slang expressions to introduce them to students, or choose the opposite approach and ask students what kind of expressions they have encountered on the Internet. Incorporating

Internet slang into ELT should be in a form of an extra activity, something to spark students‘ interest. However, it should not be something to be incorporated into ELT on regular basis, nor should it be tested. Furthermore, appropriacy, i.e. ―knowing what kind of English to use in a particular situation, rather than clinging to rigid ideas of what is universally right and proper,‖ is the key to effective communication, and should be definitely considered (Thorne, 2007, p.7). Of course, age and English proficiency of students need to be taken into account as well. Basically, the main idea of incorporating

Internet slang into ELT is to show students what is ‗out there‘, i.e. what kind of language they can encounter online and where they can search for the meaning of slang expressions, and hopefully, to motivate students to explore this area of English language by themselves and have fun with it.

3.2 INTERNET SLANG E-LEARNING COURSE

In general, the Internet is not only a new tool of communication, but also a teaching and learning tool (Xiu, 2008). Xie (2008) talks about the changes from one way delivery to two way interaction/communication (teacher – learners) as well as the changes in places of teaching and learning – from fixed classrooms and time to anywhere and anytime. Furthermore, interaction does not take place between teachers and learners only, but also between learners and native speakers of the target languages or learners elsewhere

(Xiu, 2008). Most importantly, learners encounter authentic language on the Internet rather than adapted language. The Internet also enables learners to experience the changes

in language ‗in real time‘. Learners are able to read up-to-date articles, communicate with people all over the world, watch films or TV shows without being subjected to waiting months or years for them to be dubbed and broadcasted on national TV. There are many new possibilities provided by the medium of the Internet which continue to change the process of language learning and teaching. Some of the problems of the Internet as a teaching and learning tool are the following: accessibility and inequity of the Internet,

Internet unfamiliarity, inappropriateness of some topics, and information explosion which generally makes learners confused while they try to reach specific information (Xiu, 2008).

On the other hand, there are many undeniable advantages, such as collaborative learning, communication with native speakers, increase of synchronous and asynchronous communication, and helping learners to gain more input (as cited in Xiu, 2008).

As for Internet slang, the research has shown that Czech learners are familiar with some of the expressions and aspects of Internet slang. Moreover, more than 60 % of the respondents would welcome learning high-usage Internet slang expressions in their

English lessons. This lead to the following question: In what way can be Internet slang expressions introduced to learners? The initial idea to design an Internet slang lesson for secondary school students was replaced by my supervisor‘s suggestion to create and administer an e-learning course accessible to anyone. This way, the whole potential of an e-learning environment could be used.

3.2.1 THE AIM OF THE E-COURSE

The primary aim of the e-course was to provide the main idea of ‗what is going on with English language on the Internet‘, i.e. introduce the basic forms of Internet slang, explain the meaning and practice the use of a few high-usage slang expressions, and most importantly, show the possibilities and playfulness of Internet slang and encourage learners‘ interest in this area, for teaching slang is not only about teaching the meaning of slang

expressions, but it also means the sharing of cultural experience. After all, slang emerges from specific social groups or subcultures.

3.2.2 DESIGNING THE E-COURSE

The e-learning course was designed and administered in a free software e-learning platform Laptop English (http://laptopenglish.com). Furthermore, for creation of some exercises Hot Potatoes software was used. Quizlet (http://quizlet.com/) learning tool was used for generating flashcard sets.

Methodology

Because the focus of the e-course was on Internet slang expressions, methods and approaches related to vocabulary learning were used in the first place. The emphasis was on learning from context; therefore, the e-course included exercises mainly using the top-down approach. However, the decontextualized approach was present as well when students were drilling abbreviations using Quizlet flashcards. Finally, collaborative learning was included as well in the form of forum tasks and collaborative Internet slang glossary.

Students mostly practiced their reading and writing language skills.

While creating the e-course, several challenges needed to be faced. One of them was the dilemma what slang expressions to feature. Since corpora data are not complete, it was rather difficult to choose the appropriate expressions. Because the goal was to introduce high-usage Internet slang expressions, websites including lists of popular abbreviations and acronyms had been consulted, since they appeared to be the best sources of which expressions are ‗trending‘ right now. Also expressions which Czech learners would be most likely to use in their everyday Internet-based interactions were chosen.

In addition, one of the factors considered when selecting the expressions was also personal experience and familiarity with these expressions, because, naturally, it was not only easier

to explain slang words that I personally use or had seen people use in a certain context, but also this way the inappropriate use of such expressions could be prevented. Finally, some expressions were also chosen because they related to popular culture, or simply because they were fun.

Another challenge of creating the course was related to teaching the rules of

Internet slang, because…are there really any rules? Consider non-standard spelling, for instance. And should be these ‗rules‘ even taught provided such non-standard language is considered bad? Therefore, there ‗rules‘ were rather presented as different forms of language that learners might come across while participating in Internet-based interactions.

Since context is a very important aspect for Internet slang, the idea was to present selected Internet slang expressions in appropriate and relevant context. Therefore, the course background was designed as a storyline of two teenagers from California: it included their fake interactions on Facebook, in text messages, and other social media.

These conversations were based on the entries from the Urban Dictionary and other websites, and adapted for the purpose of the course.

Structure of the e-course

The e-course was divided into the following modules:

. Getting started

. Week 1: Abbreviations I

. Week 2: Abbreviations II

. Week 3: Txting

. Week 4: Slang words and phrases

. Conclusion

For screenshots of individual modules, see Appendix 3. Each week, a new module was opened with new exercises and tasks. Furthermore, students were asked to contribute to the Internet Slang Glossary. At the end of the course, a revision quiz based on modules

Week 1 - Week 4, the Internet Slang Glossary, and contributions to the forums was administered. Before starting the course, students were asked to fill in the Introduction

Questionnaire.

Getting started

Module aims: By the end of the module, students have been introduced to different types of Internet slang, they have been presented with basic rules of using Internet slang, and with information how to work with online sources.

Module plan:

1. Getting started presentation

2. How to work with online sources

Characters of Lily and Darren, two teenagers from California, are introduced. They provide guidance throughout the course and most of the exercises reflect their storyline in order to present students with a meaningful context. The main material for this module is a presentation which begins with a YouTube video ‗Some Internet Slang‘ by American

Slang with Philochko. In the video, the following slang expressions are explained: LOL, smu, yolo, guap, hmu. From the video, learners can see that Internet slang uses many abbreviations as well as special idioms, slang phrases or slang words (such as guap).

Furthermore, other forms of Internet slang are presented: emoticons, logograms and non- standard spelling. In addition, the question when Internet slang expressions can be used is discussed. Course section How to work with online sources provides students with tips and suggestions how to proceed when they are looking for the meaning of an unknown slang expression online, especially the Urban Dictionary is recommended.

Week 1: Abbreviations I

Module aims: By the end of this module, students have been presented with 22 commonly used abbreviations and have practiced their use in context.

Module plan:

1. Chatting on Facebook - learn most commonly used abbreviations

2. Quizlet - drill the abbreviations

3. Quiz - test yourself

First, the differences between two types of abbreviations, initialisms and acronyms, are explained. Then, students do a Hot Potatoes matching exercise ‗Chatting on Facebook‘ in which they match abbreviations highlighted in Facebook conversations with their meanings. Next, students can drill the abbreviations using a set of flashcards created in Quizlet. Finally, students take a Hot Potatoes quiz in which they fill the gaps with appropriate abbreviations from a list. The quiz is in a form of two chat conversations in order to provide students with context.

Week 2: Abbreviations II

Module aims: By the end of this module, students have been presented with more commonly used abbreviations and have practiced their use online.

Module plan:

1. Chatting on Omegle - learn more abbreviations

2. Quizlet - drill the abbreviations

3. Quiz - test yourself

4. HW: Omegle - practice what you have learned

The structure of this module is similar to the previous one. However, Omegle chat, which is a free online chat website that allows users to communicate with strangers without registering, is introduced for one of the tasks. First, students do a Hot Potatoes matching

exercise ‗Chatting on Omegle‘ in which they match abbreviations highlighted in Omegle and Facebook conversations with their meanings. Next, students can drill the abbreviations using a set of flashcards created in Quizlet. After that, students take a Hot Potatoes quiz in which they fill the gaps with appropriate abbreviations from a list. The quiz is in a form of chat conversations, Facebook statuses, and comments on Facebook posts in order to provide students with context. Finally, there is a forum task HW: Omegle as a follow-up activity. Students are asked to visit the Omegle website and try chatting in English while using abbreviations that they have learned in the course so far. For the purpose of this task, students are provided with Omegle tutorial which contains instructions for chatting on Omegle and rules that students should follow. Then, students post a copy of their

Omegle chat conversation in the forum and shortly comment on their Omegle experience which is followed by feedback from the teacher as well as peer feedback.

Week 3: Txting

Module aims: By the end of this module, students have been presented with non-standard language used in text messaging and chatting, and have practiced its use in context.

Module plan:

1. Txting - learn texting expressions

2. Txting practice - practice the use of texting expressions

3. HW: Txting - practice the use of texting expressions with other course members

First, the aspects of language which occurs in text messaging and chatting are introduced, including abbreviations, emoticons. However, the main focus is on logograms and non-standard language, such as non-standard spellings, contractions, and disemvoweling.

Then, students do a Hot Potatoes matching exercise ‗Txting‘ in which they match expressions highlighted in text messages with their meanings. Students practice the use of such expressions in the following exercise: the task is to shorten three given text

messages which are longer than 200 characters to fit the character limit of one text message

(160 characters) while using texting language (abbreviations, logograms, non-standard spelling, etc.). Finally, there is a forum task in which students are asked to respond to three given text messages.

Week 4: Slang words and phrases

Module aims: By the end of this module, students have been presented with the concept of Internet memes and several common slang words and phrases used in online communication.

Module plan:

1. Presentation - learn slang words and phrases

2. Meme Quiz - practice their use

3. HW: Instagram #hashtags - browse Instagram for more examples

First, the concept of Internet memes is introduced as well as several common slang words and phrases which are explained, including examples of their use. Then, students do a Hot

Potatoes matching exercise ‗Meme Quiz‘ in which they match appropriate responses including slang words or phrases with given Facebook conversations or text messages. The last task is a forum task in which students are supposed to search hashtags on Instagram for slang expressions which have been covered in the course, such as LOL or epic fail, and choose the photos from public databases which, in their opinion, convey the meaning of the chosen expression the best and share it in the course forum. The task should help students to understand not only the meaning of slang expressions, but also their use.

Students can see in which situations the expressions are used and thus experience the authentic language in context - not example sentences which have been chosen by others. For instance, they can experience that the abbreviation LOL is rather over-used and people use it even though it does not make sense.

Conclusion

Module aims: By the end of this module, students have revised what they have learned in the course.

Module plan:

1. Final quiz – test yourself what you have learned in the course

2. Feedback Questionnaire

Students take a final quiz which focuses on the slang expressions which have been covered in the course and are asked to fill in a feedback questionnaire.

3.2.3 THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE E-COURSE

The invitation to participate in the e-learning course was spread among Czech learners of English via email or social networking sites, especially Facebook. The course was a five-week course and started on 8 October, 2013 and ended in the middle of

November 2013. In total, 10 students took part in the e-learning course: majority were female students (8), and the rest were male students; aged 18-26. Their levels of English were as follows: Intermediate (1), Upper-Intermediate (2), Advanced (5), Proficient (2).

30% of students were not used to chatting or text messaging in English at all.

The course was available at the following web address: http://laptopenglish.com/moodle/course/view.php?id=33; the enrollment key was: challengeaccepted. After enrolling in the course, students were informed about the course structure and about the course requirements. A new module was made available every week, and students were continuously completing the exercises and tasks.

In the following section, few selected e-course tasks which reflect what students have learned in the course are analyzed in greater detail.

Omegle

Instructions: Go to Omegle and chat! Try to use the abbreviations that you have learned so far. Then save or copy your Omegle chat conversation, post it in the forum under a new discussion topic and shortly comment on your Omegle experience. Use ―Example‖ post as a model. Post at least 1 Omegle chat conversation and comment on at least one of your colleagues‘ posts.

This task was aimed at the practice of abbreviations as a real life experience when chatting to a stranger on Omegle. However, students have reported that it was rather difficult to have an actual conversation with someone, and thus it was not very effective.

See one example submitted by a student below:

Figure 18: Omegle task example

Regardless the lack of cooperation on the stranger‘s part, the student demonstrated that she is familiar with the meaning of the used Internet slang expressions, and is able to use them in an appropriate context.

In addition, Omegle chat is quite risky regarding one can encounter users looking for virtual sex rather than a conversation. Therefore, it is not something that should be recommended to secondary schools students, for instance. However, I believe that under the right circumstances it can be an interesting learning tool for young adults, for it provides the possibility of an authentic chat in English.

Txting practice

Instructions: Have a look at Messages 1-3 which are all longer than 200 characters. Imagine that you are sending these messages to a friend: shorten the messages so they fit the character limit of one text message (160 characters) while using texting language

(abbreviations, logograms, non-standard spelling, etc.). Use the links featured as Other sources in the module section to help you.

The text messages that students have been asked to shorten were copied from De

Jonge and Kemp‘s paper on text messaging (2012), since these messages were specially designed to include expressions which were likely to be shortened in text messages. Some students have reported that they did not enjoy this task, for they did not like rewriting of the long passages. Because this task required a higher linguistic ability, students with a higher level of English proficiency generally demonstrated a greater ability to ‗play‘ with the language. In the examples below, the shortened messages of three students of different

English levels are compared:

Original message:

I forgot to call Kate for her birthday tonight because I was studying. She‘s annoyed

and will never forgive me. I hate exams. Maybe we‘ll celebrate on the weekend.

We‘re going swimming together tomorrow, whatever the weather forecast says.

Student 1 (Upper-Intermediate):

I forgot to call Kate 4 her Bday 2nite coz I was studying. She‘s annoyed and will

never 4give me. I h8 exams. Maybe we‘ll celebr8 on the weekend. We‘re going

swimming 2gether 2morrow, whatever the weather 4cast says.

Student 2 (Advanced):

I forgot 2 call Kate 4 her bday 2nite b/c I was studyin. She‘s annoyed and will

never 4give me. I h8 exams. Maybe we‘ll celebrate on the wknd. We‘re goin

swimmin 2morrow, whatever the weather 4cast says.

Student 3 (Proficient):

4got 2 call K8 4 her bd.Was studyin.Shes noyed an will nvr 4give me.I h8

xams.M/b well celebr8 on da wknd.Goin swimmin 2gether tmrw, w/e da weather

4cast says.

This text message proved to be rather difficult to fit the character limit; nevertheless, the featured examples show that the higher the English proficiency, the more ‗playful‘ students get with the language. In another words, more advanced students know what they can afford, i.e. what they can leave out or alter, to change in the message in order to keep it understandable. See some of the notable aspects in the table below:

Table 11: Non-standard language used in Txting practice Student Upper-Intermediate Advanced Proficient

yes, including less abbreviations yes, but only a few yes common ones

logograms yes yes yes, a lot

g-clippings no yes yes

disemvoweling no partly yes, a lot

omitting subject no no yes

omitting no no yes apostrophes

The results in the table show that the ability to apply the non-standard language is related to English proficiency: the higher the English proficiency, the more non-standard language is used.

Txting

Instructions: Let‘s practice texting! Reply to 2 of the following texts (Text 1, 2 or 3) and react to 2 of your colleagues replies.

In the following task, students have practiced their ability to use internet abbreviations and non-standard language in context when responding to given text messages. See some of the students‘ replies below:

Figure 19: Txting task (Text 2)

Figure 20: Txting task (Text 3)

Students have demonstrated their ability to use internet abbreviations (BFF, LOL, GF), logograms (2, 4, h8), and non-standard language, including g-clipping (kissin, goin), phonetic translation (u, r), non-standard spelling (da, wanna, dunno), disemvoweling (smthng). They have also demonstrated that they are aware of the fact that lower case and omitting apostrophes are considered acceptable in informal text messaging.

In general, students have reported that overall they were mostly satisfied with the course. Most of them also agreed that the course content was well-organized, the course material was helpful and that assignments reflected what was covered in the course.

Some students have reported that they did not like rewriting long passages of text and would rather prefer shorter tasks. One student would prefer to learn more abbreviations in smaller modules. Otherwise, students mentioned that they had enjoyed fake Facebook threads and games as well as the course design. Overall, majority of students agreed that the course was in line with their expectations and they found it effective.

4 CONCLUSION

The aim of this diploma thesis was to provide a linguistic analysis of Internet slang and to discuss the place of Internet slang in English language teaching. Theoretical findings were applied in the form of an Internet slang e-learning course which was also administered.

The linguistic analysis of Internet slang has shown that it is a specific variety of language with certain characteristics which slightly differ regarding the type of output; however, in general, Internet slang is more writing than speech, including several special features typical of the medium, such as simultaneous feedback, emoticons, multiple conversations, hypertext links, persistence, and multiple authorship. Furthermore,

Internet-based communication tends to challenge many pragmatic principles, including the cooperative principle, the politeness principle, the relevance theory and the rules of turn-taking; in addition, new pragmatic principles have been proposed, i.e. the principles of humor, economy, and tolerance. It has been demonstrated that Internet slang can take the form of abbreviations, emoticons, logograms, non-standard language, idioms, and other slang expressions. Notably, many of them are not novelties, and have been present in English language for decades, or even centuries. Subsequently, it has been shown that one of the primary factors driving the use of Internet slang is one‘s motivation to express their social identity, rather than illiteracy or the character limit of message services. As for the bad influence of the Internet on language, while some are more concerned than others, it is rather premature to jump into conclusions, and the future will show what the impact of the Internet on language will be. However, some suggests that the presence of the Internet in language development should be recognized and embraced, not avoided.

As for the research into Internet slang in relation to English language teaching, the survey results have shown that over 50% of students and about 80% of teachers were

familiar with selected high-usage Internet slang expressions. However, it cannot be established that teachers are generally more familiar with Internet slang than learners of English. Instead, the following factors need to be considered as determining regarding familiarity with Internet slang: age, English proficiency, and participation in Internet culture. Regarding the incorporation of Internet slang into ELT, the views varied among teachers and among students as well. The biggest argument against proved to be probably the one that if students needed or wanted to learn Internet slang expressions, they would do so by themselves on the Internet, which would also provide them with a more authentic experience of learning Internet slang. However, generally both students and teachers have shown a positive attitude: over 60% of students and 70% of teachers would favor incorporating Internet slang expressions into ELT, for they mainly found them useful or interesting. However, majority of respondents agreed that incorporating Internet slang into

ELT should be in a form of an extra activity, something to spark students‘ interest, and motivate them; it should not be something to be incorporated into ELT on regular basis, nor should it be tested. In addition, appropriate use of Internet slang should be emphasized. When incorporating Internet slang into ELT, age and English proficiency of students need to be taken into account as well.

‗Introduction to Internet Slang‘ e-learning course served as a trial to test different methods of incorporating Internet slang into ELT. Students who took part in the course have proved that they understood the meaning of Internet slang expressions covered in the course, and have also demonstrated their ability to use such expressions in context. Overall, students were mostly satisfied with the course. In addition, some of the exercises designed for the course could probably be used as a sort of additional material when introducing

Internet slang in English lessons.

In conclusion, Internet slang is an inseparable part of present-day Internet culture.

Of course, many English language learners can manage without knowing Internet slang

expressions. However, the main idea of incorporating Internet slang into ELT is to show students what is ‗out there‘, i.e. what kind of language they can encounter online and where they can search for the meaning of slang expressions, and hopefully, to motivate students to explore this area of English language by themselves and simply have fun.

5 REFERENCES

Acronym. (2013). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/acronym

Anderson, N. (2011, March 25). People officially say ―LOL‖ out loud. In Ars Technica.

Retrieved November 1, 2013 from http://arstechnica.com/tech-

policy/2011/03/people-officially-say-LOL-out-loud/

Baron, N. (2008). Always on: language in an online and mobile world. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Bullard, W., Johnson, S., Morris, J., Fox, K., & Howell, C. (n.d.). Slang. Retrieved from

University of North Carolina at Pembroke website

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/1914-/language/slang.htm

Damaso, J., & Cotter, C. (2007). UrbanDictionary.com. English Today, 23, 19-26. doi:

10.1017/S0266078407002040

Coin, R. (2012, October 2). Trolling for slang: the origins of Internet werdz. The

UNDERenlightened. Retrieved from

http://theunderenlightened.com/2012/10/02/trolling-for-slang-the-origins-of-

internet-werdz/

Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Crystal, D. (2005). The scope of Internet linguistics. Paper presented at the American

Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet [Kindle version]. 2nd ed. Retrieved from

Amazon.com

Crystal, D. (2009). Txting: the gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: a student guide. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Cyberslang. (2005, May 14). In UrbanDictionary.com. Retrieved from

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cyberslang

De Jonge, S., & Kemp, N. (2012). Text-message abbreviations and language skills in high

school and university students. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 49–68. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01466.x

Dixon, H. Jr. (2011). Texting, Tweeting, and Other Internet Abbreviations. Judges Journal,

50(4), 30-33. Retrieved from

http://www.heinonline.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/judg

ej50&id=164&collection=journals&index=journals/judgej

Disemvoweling. (2007, August 13). In Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved November 6, 2013

from

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/disemvowelling.html

Do you ever say online abbreviations out loud? Poll of the day. GameFAQs. Retrieved

November 23, 2013 from http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/3211

Dumas, B. K., & Lighter, J. (1978). Is slang a word for linguists? American Speech, 53(5), 5–

17. doi:10.2307/455336

Eisenstein, J. (2013). What to do about bad language on the internet. In Proceedings of the

2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Assosiation for Computational

Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.

Fein, D. A. (2011). Promoting vulgarity by teaching slang in the classroom. Rocky Mountain

Review, 65, 97-101. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Flamand, E. (2008). Deciphering L33t5p34k: Internet slang on message boards. (Master‘s thesis,

Ghent University). Retrieved November 6, 2013 from

http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/414/289/RUG01-

001414289_2010_0001_AC.pdf

Greig, A. (2013, October 24). Twitter overtakes Facebook as the most popular social

network for teens, according to study. MailOnline. Retrieved November 17, 2013

from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2475591/Twitter-overtakes-

Facebook-popular-social-network-teens-according-study.html

Halliday, M. & Webster, J. (2006). On language and linguistics. London: Continuum.

Hu, B. (2011, May 27-29). Pragmatic principles in Internet-based cyber communication. In

Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and

Networks (ICCSN) (pp.48-51). doi: 10.1109/ICCSN.2011.6014672

Initialism. (2013). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/initialism

Internet slang. (2009). In Know Your Meme. Retrieved from

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/internet-slang

Internet-slang. (2013, October 25). In UrbanDictionary.com. Retrieved from

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet-slang

Internet slang words and computer slang. (2013). In InternetSlang.com. Retrieved from

http://www.internetslang.com/

Jacky Blacky. (2012, May 7). I am fairly certain that ―YOLO‖ is ―Carpe Diem‖ for stupid

people [Twitter post]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/IamJackyBlack/status/199580678646538241

Jones, R. (2006). Internet slang dictionary: an authoritative guide to understanding internet lingo. S.I:

NoSlang.com. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from http://books.google.cz

Judkis, M. (2012, April 6). #YOLO: The newest acronym you‘ll love to hate. The Washington

Post. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/yolo-the-newest-

abbreviation-youll-love-to-hate/2012/04/06/gIQA3QE2zS_blog.html

100

Knibbs, K. (2013, May 22). Kthxbai! How Internet-speak is changing the way we talk IRL

(in real life). Digital Trends. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/how-the-internet-is-changing-the-way-

we-talk/

Lee, S. (2013, September 4). Internet abbreviation and daily communication [Web log

comment]. Retrieved from http://stephenleeatwork.wordpress.com

Leith, S. (2013, June 6). Sam Leith‘s most hated online abbreviations. The Guardian.

Retrieved September 17, 2013 from

http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/jun/06/sam-leith-hated-

online-abbreviations

LOL. (2013). In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved from

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/291168

McCrum, R. (2013, May 20). George Orwell‘s critique of internet English. The Guardian.

Retrieved September 17, 2013 from http://www.theguardian.com

Online jargon. (2013). In NetLingo. Retrieved from

http://www.netlingo.com/word/online-jargon.php

Larry Peterson III. (2012, April 6). Switching seats while the car is goin 100+ #yolo

[Twitter post]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/bigtimer17/status/188315789349228545

Poole, S. (2013, May 28). Is internet English debasing the language? Not IMHO. The

Guardian. Retrieved September 17, 2013 from: http://www.theguardian.com

Smith, R. E. (2011). Urban dictionary: youth slanguage and the redeﬁning of deﬁnition.

English Today, 27, 4348. doi: 10.1017/S0266078411000526

Spencer Thomas. (2012, April 6). Just got a call from my brother he got kicked out of his

hotel in panama for peeing off the balcony #cantstoplaughing #YOLO [Twitter

101

post]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/SpencerrThomas/statuses/188118202159611904

Thorne, T. (2007). Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. 3rd ed. London: A & C Black. Retrieved

from http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Thrid. (2002, August 16). An explanation of l33t speak. h2g2. Retrieved September 17, 2013

from http://h2g2.com/approved_entry/A787917

National Public Radio (Producer). (2006, February 18). OMG: IM slang is invading everyday

English [Podcast transcript]. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=5221618

UrbanDictionary.com. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Varnhagen, C., McFall, P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H. & Kwong, T.

(2009). LOL: New language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and Writing,

23, 719–733. doi:10.1007/s/11145-009-9181-y

Xie, T. (June 2008). Globalization and Language Education. Presentation. Retrieved from

Learning Chinese Online website

http://learningchineseonline.net/PPT/Globalization/globalization_and_lang_ed.p

102

6 APPENDICES

6.1 APPENDIX 1: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Internet Slang: Student Questionnaire

The survey was created to (1) examine learners' familiarity with several high-usage Internet slang expressions, i.e. expressions used in informal communication on the Internet and in text messaging; (2) find out learners' opinions on learning Internet slang expressions. The aim of the survey is to find out whether Internet slang could have its place in English language teaching.

Filling the questionnaire takes less than 10 minutes. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance!

Kristýna Guricová

*Required

1 Gender *

2 Your age: *

3 Years of studying English: *

4 Which level of English are you? *

Beginner Elementary Pre-Intermediate Intermediate Upper-Intermediate Advanced Proficient

103

5 In which ones of these situations do you communicate in English? *

Email Social networks (e.g. Facebook, Google+, LikedIn) Instant messaging (e.g. ICQ, Skype, Windows Live Messenger, Facebook chat) Chat rooms, internet forums / message boards Blogs and microblogs (e.g. Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr) Virtual worlds / online gaming (e.g. Second Life, World of Warcraft) Text messaging

6 How often do you visit/use the following websites/applications? *

I know it but I I have never heard of Regularly Sometimes Rarely don't use / visit it this website / app

Facebook

Twitter

Google+

YouTube

Instagram

Tumblr

4chan

Imgur

104

I know it but I I have never heard of Regularly Sometimes Rarely don't use / visit it this website / app

9gag

Urban Dictionary

7 Do you chat/text in English? (If not, skip the next question.) *

Yes No

8 When chatting/texting in English, I use:

Abbreviations (e.g. LOL, omg, btw, doc, esp) Emoticons (e.g. :-), :-(, :-X) Logograms (e.g. 2day, b4) Non-standard spelling (e.g. msg, pls, cuz, luv, thanx) Leetspeak (e.g. d00d, kewl, w00t) Idioms and phrases (e.g. win, fail, facepalm, challenge accpeted)

"BTW" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"LOL" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

105

"TTYL" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"LMAO" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"ATM" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"TGIF" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"FYI" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"TMI" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

106

"YOLO" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"IMHO" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"ASAP" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"howru" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"pls" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"b4" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

107

"2nite" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"l8r" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"gl" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"dunno" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"facepalm" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"epic fail" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

10 Can you give more examples of expressions used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging (e.g. abbreviations, logograms, non-standard spellings, idioms)?

108

11 If you see an unknown expression on the Internet (e.g. you see a tweet saying: "Remember when #planking was a thing?"), how do you usually learn its meaning? *

English teacher dictionary online dictionary Google Wikipedia friends native speaker I figure out the meaning myself Other:

12 Has your English teacher ever explained / taught expressions that are used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging? If yes, which? *

13 In my opinion, to know expressions used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging is... *

important useful unimportant meaningless Other:

14 Would you welcome learning Internet slang expressions in your English lessons? *

Yes, definitely Yes, but only a few high-usage ones No, I'm not interested No, I don't think I would use them No, I think that there are more important things that should be taught No, I prefer to look them up online by myself I don't know Other:

15 Any comments you would like to add...?

109

6.2 APPENDIX 2: TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

Internet Slang: Teacher Questionnaire

The survey was created to (1) examine teachers' familiarity with several high-usage Internet slang expressions, i.e. expressions used in informal communication on the Internet and in text messaging; (2) find out teachers' attitudes towards incorporating Internet slang into English language teaching. Teachers' answers will be compared with students' opinions on learning Internet slang expressions. The aim of the survey is to find out whether Internet slang could have its place in English language teaching.

Filling the questionnaire takes less than 10 minutes. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance!

Kristýna Guricová

*Required

1 Gender *

2 Your age: *

3 Years of teaching English: *

4 Are you a native speaker? *

Yes No

5 In which ones of these Internet situations do you communicate in English? *

The difference between 'instant messaging' and 'chat rooms' is that 'instant messaging' means one-to-one interaction, whereas 'chat rooms' means interaction with multiple people in the same conversation, usually strangers.

Email Social networks (e.g. Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn) Instant messaging (e.g. ICQ, Skype, Windows Live Messenger, Facebook chat) Chat rooms, internet forums / message boards

110

Blogs and microblogs (e.g. Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr) Virtual worlds / online gaming (e.g. Second Life, World of Warcraft) Text messaging

6 How often do you visit / use the following websites / applications? *

I know it but I I have never heard of Regularly Sometimes Rarely don't use / visit it this website / app

Facebook

Twitter

Google+

YouTube

Instagram

Tumblr

4chan

Imgur

9gag

Urban Dictionary

111

7 Do you chat / text in English? (If not, skip the next question.) *

Yes No

8 When chatting / texting in English, I use:

"BTW" means... *

If you know the meaning, or you think you know what the expression means, enter it into the 'Other' box.

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"LOL" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"TTYL" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

112

"LMAO" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"ATM" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"TGIF" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"FYI" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"TMI" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"YOLO" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

113

"IMHO" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"ASAP" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"howru" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"pls" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"b4" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"2nite" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

114

"l8r" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"gl" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"dunno" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"facepalm" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

"epic fail" means... *

I have seen this expression before but I don‘t know the meaning I haven't seen this expression before Other:

10 Can you give more examples of expressions used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging (e.g. abbreviations, logograms, non- standard spellings, idioms)?

115

11 If you see an unknown expression on the Internet (e.g. you see a tweet saying: "Remember when #planking was a thing?"), how do you usually learn its meaning? *

dictionary online dictionary Google Wikipedia friends colleagues native speaker I figure out the meaning myself Other: 12 Have your students ever asked you to explain / teach expressions used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging? If yes, were you familiar with their meanings? *

13 For English language learners, to know expressions used in informal communication on the Internet or in text messaging is... *

important useful unimportant meaningless Other:

14 Would you consider teaching Internet slang expressions in your English lessons? *

Yes, definitely Yes, but only a few high-usage ones No, I don't think that my students would use them No, I think that there are more important things to focus on No, I think it is better if students learn such expressions by themselves No, I don't think it is appropriate I don't know Other: 15 Any comments you would like to add...?

116

6.3 APPENDIX 3: E-COURSE SCREENSHOTS

6.3.1 E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

117

6.3.2 GETTING STARTED

118

6.3.3 WEEK 1: ABBREVIATIONS I

119

6.3.4 WEEK 1: CHATTING ON FACEBOOK EXERCISE

120

6.3.5 WEEK 1: QUIZ

121

6.3.6 WEEK 2: ABBREVIATIONS II

122

6.3.7 WEEK 3: TXTING

123

6.3.8 WEEK 4: SLANG WORDS AND PHRASES

124

125

6.3.9 CONCLUSION

126

7 SUMMARY

This diploma thesis deals with Internet slang in relation to English language teaching (ELT). It is devoted to the analysis of Internet slang as a language variety and to the discussion of its place in ELT. One of the objectives of the thesis is to provide a linguistic analysis of Internet slang. It focuses on the characteristics of Internet slang, its pragmatic aspects, and its forms, i.e. abbreviations, pictograms and logograms, non-standard language, and also slang words and phrases. It also mentions the phenomena of Internet memes as well as collaborative online dictionaries, the Urban Dictionary in particular. In addition, it discusses the alleged bad influence of the Internet on English language. Furthermore, the thesis examines the familiarity of English language teachers in the Czech Republic and Czech learners of English with high-usage Internet slang expressions, and discusses their attitudes towards the teaching and learning of Internet slang, and their opinions on its incorporation into ELT. In addition, the theoretical as well as research findings are applied in the form of designing and administering of the

‗Introduction to Internet Slang‘ e-learning course for English language learners. The research showed that three factors need to be distinguished in order to determine the familiarity with Internet slang, i.e. age, English proficiency, participation in Internet culture, and that most students and teachers would favor incorporating high-usage Internet slang expressions into ELT.

127

8 RESUMÉ

Tato diplomová práce se zabývá tématem internetového slangu ve vztahu k výuce anglického jazyka. Práce se věnuje analýze internetového slangu jako jazykové varianty a diskuzi o jeho postavení v rámci výuky anglického jazyka. Jedním z cílů práce je provést jazykovědnou analýzu internetového slangu. Práce se zaměřuje na charakteristické rysy internetového slangu, jeho pragmatické aspekty a jeho formy, tj. zkratky, piktogramy a logogramy, jazykové zvláštnosti a slangové výrazy a fráze. Zmíněn je také fenomén tzv. internetových memes a online slovníků založených na spolupráci uživatelů, především slovníku Urban Dicitonary. Dále se práce věnuje diskuzi, zda má Internet na anglický jazyk

špatný vliv, jak se mnohdy předpokládá. Kromě toho práce zkoumá znalosti učitelů anglického jazyka v České republice a českých studentů anglického jazyka v oblasti často používaných výrazů anglického internetového slangu, dále zjišťuje jejich přístup k výuce a učení se internetového slangu, stejně jako jejich názory na zařazení internetového slangu do výuky anglického jazyka. Následně jsou teoretické poznatky a poznatky z výzkumu aplikovány prostřednictvím navržení a realizace e-learingového kurzu „Introdcution to

Internet Slang― (Úvod do internetového slangu) určeného pro studenty anglického jazyka.

Výzkum ukázal, že co se týče úrovně znalostí v oblasti anglického internetového slangu, musí být zohledněny tři faktory, a to věk, úroveň znalosti anglického jazyka a účast na internetové kultuře. Dále výzkum ukázal, že většina studentů a učitelů by uvítala zařazení

často používaných výrazů anglického internetového slangu do výuky anglického jazyka.

128