Приложение

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |

Other reasons for short messages include the often difficult to manage interface and the fact that communications with close friends/partners/family members allows one to organise messages pragmatically as a common background exists. 'The messages serve to tie the group together through the development of a common history or narrative' (Ling, 2000: 18). For these reasons SMS communication allows for a reasonable use of syntactic and lexical short forms which save character space or touches of the handset keys, as compared with using the full forms of words (Döring, 2002: 7). With this method of text production one saves time as well as effort and users are then more likely to use the service for subsequent messages.

This work hopes to identify how this method of conversation has evolved and to decide whether the language is for the most part standard or predominantly dialectic where users require outside context in order for the messages to be fully understood? Most text messages are not in the form of standard written discourse, but users are very effective in visually describing what they want their readers to hear in their SMS voices. Through the new written conventions of SMS, texters have developed a written form of intonation that replaces the ability to hear otherwise spoken utterances. The language used in text messaging has developed it's own unique style as have email and chat-room languages before and 'social networks are maintained through the use of the language' (Ling, 1998: 4). The fact that only a tiny space is available to communicate has meant that the texter has to condense as much meaning as possible into a tiny message. This has leant to a skilled form of communication with arguably, almost as much expressiveness as verbal intercourse in the hands of the right person. Döring (2002) also believes that abbreviations and acronyms fulfil a collective identity function whereby it requires a special shared knowledge to be able to understand the language and consequently be able to use it. The adept use of these personalised language short forms is an indicator of group affiliation and a component of group identity. The language specific to SMS users often does not relate to standard language and the mass media thus label SMS communication as the secret code of the youth or as the big SMS action against long sentences (Döring 2002).

Döring also notes that in cases where syntactic reductions are used even though enough space exists for the full version of the words, this can be interpreted as a distinct familiarity between the communication partners. The continued use of SMS short forms byyoung users can produce messages, which can only be understood by their peers. As Döring (2002: 8) asserts:

This medium-specific collective identity function is separated from linguistic manifestations of other group identities as well as individual identities. So the use of SMS acronyms could also be an attempt to stylise itself as modern or cool.