# data[].attributes.body
https://study.com/academy/lesson/instant-messaging-overview-history-applications.html

# data[].attributes.body
Instant messaging is a great tool to help with our everyday activities, one of which is when we're doing our jobs or work that require quick and simple explanations, but even if it is a problem solver for us there are pros and cons when we use instant messages such as its easy to use and easily helps us connect with different people but it lacks productivity for mass communications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instant messages can be a quick, easy way for two people - or small groups of people - to chat and share information. They give the participants a very simple and efficient way to have a conversation while also working on other tasks at the same time.

Many people are used to using these systems in their personal lives as they keep up lines of communication with family and friends. There are many instant messaging programs for business, too, often coming as part of other software packages. Examples include Whatsapp, Skype, Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, WeChat, Telegram, Slack - just to name a few. Learn more about instant messaging advantages and disadvantages

Table of contents
Instant messaging advantages Instant messaging disadvantages How to overcome the disadvantages of instant messaging for business
Instant messaging advantages

There are advantages and disadvantages of instant messaging. Some benefits of instant messaging include:

1. Expediency of communication

Because instant messages are just that - instant messages - they can help facilitate short, sharp conversations and allow people to share information quickly.

2. More visible than email

Instant messenger systems are more likely to be paid attention to by employees than emails are. Emails can sit in peoples' inboxes for hours unnoticed - if they are even opened at all - while the nature of instant messages is that they capture peoples' attention more quickly.

3. Easily connects people regardless of location

Whether you're on the other side of the office, or the other side of the world, an instant messenger will let you contact a colleague and share ideas and information quickly, in real time. It's especially useful in situations where colleagues are working in remote or hybrid flexible styles.

4. Easy to use

Instant messengers are intuitive and easy to use, requiring very minimal technical skill, making them a democratic communications tool in any workplace. People are used to using them in their daily lives to talk to family and friends and business instant messaging tools are a natural extension of this.

Instant messaging disadvantages

There are several good reasons to use instant messenger services in your organization: they enable employees to quickly reach out to one another to get information they need in a less disruptive manner than making a phone call, sending an email or wandering over to a colleague's desk for a discussion. Whether the person is at the next desk or on the other side of the world, this can be a very efficient form of informal communication, to this extent, and encourage collaboration and boost your team building.

However, it should be noted that instant messenger systems have numerous limitations and should not be relied upon as a major communications channel within your organization for imparting important communications or even for sharing sensitive information.

While each instant messaging system has its own pros and cons and configurations, in general these are the disadvantages your company can face when using instant messaging for business communications:

1. Productivity issues with instant messengers

While instant messaging for business can cut down on a lot of unnecessary time spent on ineffective communication, and reduce long-distance telephone charges, they are also potentially open to misuse. Some cohorts of employees could spend hours each day using instant messenger, gossiping or generally wasting time while looking to the world like they are actually busy, doing work.

Messenger notifications can also still be just as distracting as a phone call or incoming email for someone who is trying to concentrate on some critical work or attempting to meet a deadline.

2. Security issues with instant messengers

Very simply, most instant messenger platforms aren't secure and you should not trust them to send information that you wouldn't want being shared outside of your company.

The external instant messenger platforms are essentially on public networks, which means that they could easily be intercepted or hacked by external parties. Some instant messengers have better security protocols than others.

Your organization goes to a lot of effort to protect its classified, confidential or otherwise secret business files and store them securely on servers that can't be easily accessed by the outside world. When files are shared over instant messenger, all these security protocols go out the window unless you know you can trust that it is properly encrypted.

Chats conducted over an instant messenger can also be easily copied and pasted and end up in the wrong hands.

There are other vulnerabilities too around passwords and authentication, meaning information can fall into the wrong hands.

3. Ineffective tool for mass communication

As mentioned above, instant messaging for business is a good place for informal chat and for quick exchanges of information between two people or very small groups. Beyond that, they become unwieldy and it can be hard for everyone to keep up with the chat when many, many voices are added to the mix.

So if you wanted to use one to broadcast information to all employees as a way of grabbing their attention, you are more likely to have your message drowned out by other voices chiming in... or it might go unnoticed entirely.

While instant messaging systems are a good way to bypass email - which has become a problematic way to share information in and of itself with many office workers suffering from email fatigue and not opening every message that hits their inboxes - it can also suffer from some of the same setbacks.

Instant messages cut down on small messages that can contribute to the volumes of electronic mail cluttering peoples' inboxes. But many workers see them as another annoying distraction and switch them off or mute them... or never even log into them in the first place. Many workers see it as "just one more thing" they have to do, and another thing that becomes distracting and overwhelming. These workers will never be reached if you have something urgent to impart.

4. Problematic system for archiving

Some instant messenger systems won't enable you to search for previous conversations when you log in to a new session, meaning you can't go back and look for previously shared information at a future date.

Other instant messenger systems have archiving functions, but you would need to develop a whole range of protocols around what to name the files so they can be useful and searchable.

A primary reason to improve internal communication within an organization is to facilitate information sharing and to improve corporate knowledge, and break down "silos". Many instant messenger programs will not help with this, and only contribute to it.

5. Cannot be controlled by management

While certain features can be turned on and off, depending on the system, ultimately users of corporate instant messaging can send their own content to one another and it might not be correct, useful or constructive. In fact, it could even be contradictory to official information that management is sending elsewhere.

How to overcome the disadvantages of instant messaging for business

There is a time and place for instant messaging for business, so there is no need to just throw it out and ban it altogether. When used in conjunction with appropriate other internal communication tools and channels, it can be very useful, as outlined above.

Firstly, you need to establish parameters and protocols around the use of instant messaging in your organization. This would include guidelines on what it can and can't be used for and appropriate use such as language.

It's good practice to ensure your employees understand the importance of cybersecurity in general and their role in keeping your organization safe... guidelines about the safe use of instant messaging platforms should be included in this.

Depending on the platform you can possibly configure the system so that it does not allow employees to share files or communicate with people outside of the organization.

You may also be able to configure the system so you can monitor use and detect if employees are spending too much time using the software or sharing information they shouldn't be.

Look at other ways of sending urgent or mass communication that mimics certain aspects of instant messenger software without being the same system.

For example, DeskAlerts is an internal communications software platform that includes features such as pop-up notifications appearing on employees' computer screens, similar to the way an instant message notification would appear: essentially you can think of a pop-up alert as a one-way instant messenger message. The difference is it is controlled by management and users cannot prevent the messages from appearing, guaranteeing the information will be seen - there is a 100% open rate. Pop-up messages appear on employees' screens no matter what other apps they are using at the time. This is also a completely safe way to share attachments with your staff, such as videos, photos and documents.

By using these systems in tandem you can achieve great results in improving your internal communications.

Watch how you can help your employees to perform at their best with internal communications software.

More on that topic: how to choose employee communications software.

***
Improving the flow of information within an organization doesn't have to be a difficult task. When you invest in innovative tools and communications channels to share information with your people, you'll reap the benefits in terms of boosted employee morale, improved productivity, greater efficiencies and more profits. Get in touch with our team today to find out how DeskAlerts pop-up alerts and other tools can add value to your communication.

FAQ

What are the advantages and disadvantages of instant messaging or pros and cons of instant messaging?

The benefits of instant messaging include:

Being able to communicate in real time with other people

Being able to multitask while communicating with others

Better than having to speak on the phone

Disadvantages of instant messaging include:

Having less time to deliberate before sending the message compared with when composing and reviewing an email

May contain ads if using a free service

Privacy and security concerns.

What are the risks of instant messaging and texting?

There are several risks to beware of when using instant messaging and texting in the workplace. These include:

Viruses and other malware

Identity theft

Data leaks

Instant messaging spam

Firewall tunnelling

Is instant messaging good for business?

There are advantages and disadvantages of instant messaging for business, but if used well it can help to improve communication and collaboration. So, now you know more about instant messaging advantages and disadvantages.

What is instant messaging in business communication?

Instant messaging can be used in business communication so that employees can send and receive short messages, in real time, for one-on-one conversations or for group discussions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros And Cons of Instant Messaging For Business Communications | DeskAlerts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant messages can be a quick, easy way for two people - or small groups of people - to chat and share information. They give the participants a very simple and efficient way to have a conversation while also working on other tasks at the same time.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.besttextmarketing.com/history-of-short-message-service-sms/

history of short message services/ short messages and how shortened words are initially created through messages with a limited 160 characters in English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As SMS (Short Message Service) celebrates 25 years, it's a good time to look back at its history and see how it's developed since 1985. This article reviews the history of Short Message Service, aka text messaging.
Origins of SMS
SMS made its appearance in 1985, beginning as a German/French team including Bernard Ghillebaert, Friedhelm Hillebrand, and Oculy Silaban. Originally, the SMS service was defined in the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standards. The intent was to provide a means for transfer of brief, one-way information, like the news flashes one sees on the bottom of a TV screen. Candidates for inclusion were stock market quotes, sports score updates, weather reports, and up-to-the-minute traffic information. Short messages sent from providers' websites were also planned. It was aimed at business people. The first SMS message actually sent, and beginning the history of short message service (SMS), was a Christmas greeting on December 3, 1992, traveling on Vodafone's GSM network in the UK.

SMS was not expected to be the success it turned out to be, and that's one reason why it was originally free. Its popularity and its youthful audience surprised service providers, who did not mount an extensive advertising campaign and didn't, in fact, spread the word much at all until after it began to make waves. This was partly because it had a steep learning curve. The industry didn't anticipate that people would be up to the challenge. But young people not only were up to the challenge; they actually found the challenge of the complexity worked to their advantage in that the medium could be used free from parental oversight and intrusion because adults were finding the medium too challenging to take it on. That there was initially no cost was an added bonus.
SMS Developments
The limitation to messages of 160 characters in English (fewer in alphabets that have characters that use up more memory. As people worked to communicate as fully as possible in this limited medium, new abbreviations and types of abbreviations arose. Because these spellings were new inventions, they spread slowly among users and added to the protection people felt using the medium: outsiders, which included anyone who wasn't using the medium, now were challenged both by the complexity of the technology and the opacity of the language that was used.

In early SMS history, when the first prepaid airtime became available, SMS charges didn't exist, and people could avoid be shocked by their usage costs if they texted instead of making expensive voice calls, SMS text message marketing popularity increased markedly. By 2000, monthly texts per user averaged 35. By 2010, the monthly average was 357. But as SMS usage took off, services realized that they should be charging for SMS. Nevertheless, the impetus was there, and the popularity of SMS, instead of being curtailed by the new charges, continued to grow apace.

Short message service history developed quickly with the use of short codes, another SMS innovation appeared in the United States in 2003. These 5-6 digit codes ( short codes) are not only easier to remember than regular telephone numbers, but they made an ideal fit with value-added services, including subscribing to SMS campaigns from the customer's favorite vendors, voting on television shows, accessing premium mobile services, and ordering ringtones, the latter two being the next development that emerged in the wake of the enormous popularity of SMS text messaging. However, by 2009, premium services were in less demand, and standard services were in greater demand. Nevertheless, the use of the SMS service is expected to continue to grow and generate $233 billion in income in calendar year 2014.

Recent SMS history developments include businesses learning to use SMS text messaging for SMS niche marketing and contact with select audiences. There are SMS alert systems for educational institutions, virtual concierge services for travelers, parent-contact programs for K-12 schools, patient contact programs for healthcare providers, community contact programs for churches, and advertising programs for restaurants, hotels, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Short Message Service (SMS) - Best Text Marketing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As SMS (Short Message Service) celebrates 25 years, it's a good time to look back at its history and see how it's developed since 1985. This article reviews the history of Short Message Service, aka text messaging. Origins of SMS SMS made its appearance in 1985, beginning as a German/French team including Bernard Ghillebaert, Friedhelm ...

# data[].attributes.body
This texting dictionary covers the text abbreviations and acronyms that the majority of children and teenagers use to communicate via text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texting Dictionary - terms used by young people online | Internet Matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texting dictionary | Text abbreviations, language terms, and acronyms used by most children and young people online and in social media | Internet Matters

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.techtarget.com/searchunifiedcommunications/definition/instant-messaging#:~:text=Why%20is%20instant%20messaging%20used,other%20asynchronous%20forms%20of%20communication.

Instant Messaging is used for faster communication between people in real time. It is a convenient and more flexible alternative to an email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is instant messaging?

Instant messaging, often shortened to IM or IM'ing, is the exchange of near- real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Unlike chatrooms with many users engaging in multiple and overlapping conversations, IM sessions usually take place between two users in a private, back-and-forth style of communication.

A core feature of many instant messenger clients is the ability to see whether a friend or co-worker is online and connected through the selected service -- a capability known as . As the technology has evolved, many IM clients have added support for features such as file transfer and image sharing within an IM session.

Instant messaging differs from email in the immediacy of the message exchange. IM also tends to be session-based, having a start and an end. Because IM is intended to mimic in-person conversations, individual messages are often brief. Email, on the other hand, usually reflects a longer-form, letter writing style.

Instant messaging requires users to communicate via the same application.

How does instant messaging work?

Generally, IM users must know each other's username or screen name to initiate a session. Contact or buddy lists of frequent contacts can be created. Once the intended recipient has been identified and selected, the sender opens an IM window to begin the session.

For IM'ing to work as intended, users must be online at the same time, although nearly all instant messaging platforms enable asynchronous interactions between online and offline users. If offline messaging is not supported, attempting to IM an unavailable user results in a notification that the transmission cannot be completed. In addition, the intended recipient must be willing to accept instant messages. Most IM clients can be configured to reject certain users.

When a message is received, the instant messaging application alerts the recipient with a window -- often a pop-up window -- containing the incoming message. Or, depending on the user's settings, a window could indicate an IM has arrived along with a prompt to accept or reject it. Many IM clients notify the user with a distinctive sound, such as a chime or chirp. The user can also receive a visual notification, such as flashing the IM window or its taskbar icon when a message arrives.

In the past, IM clients were often based on proprietary protocols, requiring that users use the same communication software. However, the use of open standards is more common today, enabling multiplatform instant messaging systems, such as Pidgin and Trillian.

Another important shift in IM is the way in which it's accessed and delivered. These apps were long deployed as desktop clients that had to be downloaded and installed. Now, instant messaging is more often found as a feature within another web- or cloud-based service, such as Facebook, Gmail and Skype, or as a mobile app, such as WhatsApp Messenger.

Why is instant messaging used?

Instant messaging is used for real-time communication among users on the internet. Enterprise and consumer users find it an immediate, convenient and flexible alternative to email. IM'ing is faster than email and more direct than other asynchronous forms of communication. Users can IM from a range of devices, not just their phone.

Enterprise instant messaging systems let users indicate their availability, chat with each other, exchange documents and hold group meetings. Instant messaging is a key form of communication to keep remote workers connected and coordinate workflows. Applications that were primarily for other uses are expanding into IM. For instance, Zoom, which is primarily known for video conferencing, contains IM chat features, and the company is planning to expand its chat capabilities.

In a consumer context, instant messaging is a useful alternative to text and Short Message Service ( SMS) messages because a cellular network is not required for IM'ing. Many social media platforms incorporate IM features.

Chatbots are a variation on IM'ing. They mimic the user experience in an IM exchange, but instead of speaking with another person, the user is speaking to an automated program. Chatbots are used for automating simple customer service requests.

Applications like Pidgin and Trillian offer encrypted messaging, which can be used for off-the-record chats and sensitive data, like personal health information.

Instant messaging features

Text-based communication has been the chief function of instant messaging for a long time, but it is now one of many features. Other capabilities include the following:

Availability. Presence technology enables users to see the availability of their contacts. Many apps show if contacts are online or offline and if they have set their status to free or busy. Some clients let users set an away message and provide detail about their availability. In an active session, many apps indicate in real time when a user is typing.

Images. Many clients let users insert images and emojis into messages.

File transfer. Sending and sharing files is also a standard part of many IM apps. Facebook Messenger even lets users send money via IM.

Switching to other communication modes. Numerous instant messaging apps let IM users move to other modes of communication -- such as group chat, voice calls and video conferencing -- within the app.

What are the types of instant messaging?

IM applications are often standalone applications, such as WhatsApp. They can also be embedded applications with multiple purposes.

Instant messaging programs can differ based on the platform they are embedded in. For example, an instant messaging tool can be embedded into the following:

Social media. For example, Facebook Messenger has a list of Facebook friends that users can open a chat with in a pop-up window. On a mobile device, Facebook Messenger is a separate app that imports contacts from Facebook and displays them as a list.

Video conferencing. Zoom has a small chat window in the side of the video that can be used to chat with the whole group or an individual.

Gaming and streaming. Twitch is a streaming platform where users can stream live video and gameplay, alongside a chat window where they can interact with other users.

When they are standalone applications, they often incorporate cross-platform features, such as the following:

Some embedded programs have these cross-platform features as well. For example, Facebook Messenger has video chat.

Popular instant messaging software and platforms

While some instant messaging tools are specifically consumer services and other are for enterprises, crossovers do exist. The following is a list of popular consumer and enterprise instant messaging services:

AOL Instant Messenger, or AIM, was once one of the most popular tools in the instant messaging market in North America. It was discontinued on Dec. 15, 2017.

What is the difference between instant messaging and texting?

Both instant messaging and texting involve exchanging digital messages in real time. The two methods of communication are different, however.

Texting

Texting uses a cellular network to exchange messages. Two cellphone users can communicate via text using any cellular carrier -- the carriers do not need to be the same. The users do not need an internet connection, just cell carrier plans and cellphones. Cellular companies control the cost and message limits of communicating via text message.

Instant messaging

By contrast, instant messaging requires that both parties have internet connections to exchange messages. The communicating devices do not have to be phones -- they can be computers, tablets, smartphones or any other internet-connected device. IM apps often require users to communicate using the same application. A user cannot send a message on Facebook Messenger to a contact using Microsoft Teams. There may be a delay in message transmission without a proper internet connection.

Instant messaging is also frequently included as a feature of unified communication (UC) tools, like Zoom. Text messaging is less commonly included in these applications.

Instant messaging is a core component of enterprise unified communications tools that enable a high-quality remote work experience.
IM and chat tools are important pieces of a UC strategy. Learn how to implement, evaluate and manage UC in the enterprise.

Continue Reading About instant messaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Instant Messaging? - Definition from SearchUnifiedCommunications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant messaging, often shortened to IM or IM'ing, is the exchange of near- real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Unlike chatrooms with many users engaging in multiple and overlapping conversations, IM sessions usually take place between two users in a private, back-and-forth style of communication.

# data[].attributes.body
The need for efficiency has a big impact on language. Speaking always valued speed over length and complexity. The written word has developed differently because it has always required more time to read and was intended for communication across time and space.

But texting is something entirely new, a written communication that is intended to be as quick and adaptable as spoken conversation. As a result, efficiency is becoming more important.
Consider some of the features of texting:
- abbreviations
- dropped vowels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact of Texting on Language - Is it Positive or Negative?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texting has quickly became a norm from a trend, what impact did it left on the language use & development? Let’s explore.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.techfunnel.com/information-technology/how-does-instant-messaging-work/

Before the advent of the telephone, the easiest way for human beings to communicate with one another was face to face. Instant Messaging, as implied by its name is an internet service responsible for the simple, easy and instant sending of messages from one user to another user of such service or in other words, a text conversation between more than one person in an internet chatroom with the aid of their mobile devices or other electronic communication devices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Does Instant Messaging Work? | Techfunnel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Would you like to know what instant messaging is, how it works, the dangers involved and lot more so why wait let us get right into it. Click to read now!

# data[].attributes.body
Structurally, CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) can be defined in two basic parameters. The first is synchronicity, and the second is either the communication one-to-one or many-to-many.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Discourse Structures in Instant Messaging: The Case of Utterance Breaks

Naomi S. Baron

American University

Abstract

Both users of CMC and the popular press commonly assume that online platforms such as email and instant messaging (IM) mirror informal spoken language. The present study investigates the validity of this assumption by examining discourse structures in IM conversations between American college students. Linguistic features of spoken and written language were first compared both paradigmatically and empirically, drawing particularly on research on intonation units by Chafe (1980, 1994). A subsequent fine-grained analysis of the grammatical points at which subjects chunked their IM turns into multiple transmissions revealed that while IM conversations between male dyads tended to resemble spoken discourse according to this dimension, IM conversations between females bore more similarities to traditional written language.

Structurally, computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be defined in terms of two basic parameters. The first is synchronicity. In synchronous CMC, transmission is essentially instantaneous, and interlocutors are assumed to be physically present to read and respond to messages, whereas in asynchronous CMC, neither of these assumptions holds. The second parameter is whether the communication is one-to-one (i.e., between two people) or many-to-many (i.e., multiple participants' messages being broadcast to multiple potential interlocutors). ¹ Table 1 illustrates the resulting four classes of CMC.

Table 1. Types of computer-mediated communication

In practice, users often cross category lines. For example, contemporary email (an asynchronous technology) often transmits messages in near-real time, and many users reply immediately, rendering the technologically asynchronous medium effectively synchronous. ² Conversely, in the case of instant messaging (IM), although the technology is designed to work synchronously, it often is used asynchronously, especially by college-aged students (Baron, 2005). Similar caveats apply to the paradigmatic distinction between one-to-one and many-to-many communication. With media designed for dyadic message exchange such as email and IM, duplicate copies of messages are commonly sent to third parties through use of the copy, blind copy, forwarding, or cut-and-paste functions. Conversely, many-to-many formats such as listservs or blogs sometimes effectively become one-to-one exchanges that take place before audiences of non-participatory readers.

The technology of CMC has generally dictated that computer-mediated messages are written. ³ However, end users often comment on the informal speech-like quality of the medium (e.g., Lee, 2002). A persistent question intriguing Internet researchers has been whether the stylistic features of CMC are more like those of informal speech or paradigmatic writing (e.g., Baron, 1998, 2000, 2003; Collot & Belmore, 1996; Crystal, 2001; Danet, 2001; Ferrara, Brunner, & Whittemore, 1991; Hård af Segerstad, 2002; Herring, 2002, 2003; Maynor, 1994; Yates, 1996).

One challenge in interpreting some of the CMC literature (e.g., Crystal 2001; Ferrara, Brunner, & Whittemore, 1991) is that it generalizes across different genres of CMC (e.g., email, chat, web pages), while usage patterns across genres may show considerable disparity. Moreover, results have typically been stated ahistorically, for a single point in time (one exception is Herring, 1998), while usage patterns sometimes evolve. A case in point is the growing tendency for younger users to see email as a relatively formal medium compared with IM (Shiu & Lenhart, 2004), a perception that contrasts with the 1990s view of email as stylistically informal (Crystal, 2001; Hale & Scanlon, 1999). Third, many forms of CMC reveal considerable stylistic variation, reflecting such considerations as user age and gender, level of user experience, communication function, and medium for composing and receiving a CMC message (e.g., full computer keyboard versus mobile phone keypad) (Herring, 2007). Given the concomitant variance found in traditional spoken and (off-line) written language (Tannen, 1982a, 1982b; Chafe & Tannen, 1987), it is often unclear against what norm CMC data are being compared. Finally, the preponderance of CMC research has focused on many-to-many communication, rather than on dyadic CMC. This is understandable, in that many-to-many communication is often publicly available and hence easier to access and study; however, private CMC is more commonly used and hence important to understand, as well.

Another problem with existing characterizations of CMC as a spoken or written modality is that few empirical attempts have been made to evaluate CMC data against comparable spoken or written corpora. Exceptions are Collot and Belmore (1996) and Yates (1996). However, the CMC data they examined were of many-to-many communication (from a bulletin board system and a computer conferencing system, respectively), not of one-to-one genres such as email and IM. Moreover, their CMC corpora predate the explosion in CMC activity over the past decade, and CMC language patterns may have evolved in the interim.

In recent years, CMC research designs have become increasingly fine-tuned. Herring (2003) has investigated the linguistic effects of gender and synchronicity in American CMC. Hård af Segerstad (2002) has compared the language of Swedish email, chat, IM, and text messaging on mobile phones. Ling (2004) has considered the effects of age and gender on the linguistic character of Norwegian text messages.

This article contributes to the empirical study of the spoken or written nature of CMC by analyzing the discourse structure of English-language instant messaging. Specifically, it examines a common stylistic convention found in the way adolescents and young adults compose and transmit instant messages. That convention is to break down ("chunk") single utterances into several components, which are then transmitted seriatim, rather than typing out the entire utterance and then transmitting it all of a piece. For example, rather than send the whole utterance 'that must feel nice to be in love in the spring with birds chirping and frogs leaping' as a single transmission, a user might send a sequence of short transmissions, e.g.:

IM Transmission 1: that must be nice
IM Transmission 2: to be in love
IM Transmission 3: in the spring
IM Transmission 4: with birds chirping
IM Transmission 5: and frogs leaping

The study reported in this article analyzes the linguistic character of utterance chunks used by a group of American college students in their IM conversations with peers. The eventual goal of this analysis is to enable researchers to compare IM utterance breaks with the kinds of chunking found in informal face-to-face communication, thereby furthering the ongoing discussion of whether IM discourse more closely resembles speech or writing.

The article begins with a short overview of CMC as spoken or written discourse. The following two sections summarize relevant IM research from the current literature and introduce the IM corpus used for the utterance break analysis. After examining the utterance breaks themselves, we consider the implications of our findings for broader questions concerning IM as a spoken or written medium, as well as questions pertaining to gender. The article closes with suggestions for future research.

There is a considerable literature analyzing the relationship between spoken and written language (e.g., Baron, 2000; Biber, 1988; Chafe & Danielewicz, 1987; Chafe & Tannen, 1987; Crystal, 1995; Tannen, 1982a, 1982b). Research suggests that the two modalities often differ in relatively predictable ways. For example, written language is generally more structurally complex than speech, while speech typically has more contractions and more first and second person pronouns than prose.

However, schematic comparisons of speech and writing fail to reveal many of the related properties that are particular to each modality. Given the common propensity to describe IM as a version of spoken discourse, albeit in textual format, I focus here on the related properties of one-to-one spoken conversation, which prototypically occurs face-to-face.

Face-to-Face Spoken Conversation

One such property is the overall structuring of the conversation: What is the length and the speed of the discourse? What is the length (in words or time) of individual turns? ⁴ What is the lexical and grammatical composition of each turn? A second conversational property is turn-taking and overlaps between turns (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Among the relevant questions here are: How do interlocutors take and hold the floor? What constitutes a felicitous reply to an interlocutor's utterance? When may one interrupt an interlocutor's turn? How does one keep track of multiple conversational threads that overlap? Third is the question of how interlocutors open and close conversations (Schegloff & Sacks, 1974): Is special language used? How many turns (and how much time on the clock) does it take to initiate or terminate a conversation?

Finally, there is the question of whether (and, if so how) speakers divide their turns into smaller units. As Chafe (1980, 1994, 2001), Crystal (1975), Halliday (1967), Swerts and Geluykens (1994), and others have observed, speakers involved in either monologic or dialogic discourse commonly divide their utterances into smaller intonation or breath groups, separated by falling or rising intonation or by a pause. Within the scope of a single turn, a speaker might utter a sequence of smaller chunks, such as:

Chunk 1: I was wondering
Chunk 2: whether you're coming to dinner tonight
Chunk 3: or you need to work.

Division of speaker turns into what Chafe calls 'intonation units' is directly pertinent to the present study, since interlocutors in IM conversations commonly chain together sequences of shorter IM transmissions while continuing to hold the floor. Are these sequences of IM transmissions analogous to intonation units in spoken face-to-face conversation? If so, does the analogy support the argument that IM tends to be a speech-like form of communication?

Over time, Chafe has refined his notion of an intonation unit (see Chafe, 1980, pp. 14-15; Chafe & Danielewicz, 1987, p. 95; Chafe, 1994, ch. 5). However, the primary features of the intonation unit remain these:

* ends with a clause-final intonation contour (i.e., a rising or a falling pitch)
* begins with at least a brief pause
* begins with a conjunction (typically and, although alternatively but or so)
* syntactically, the intonation unit is likely to be a single clause, although some clauses extend over several intonation units

A speech segment need only have one of these characteristics to qualify as an intonation unit, although, by itself, the presence of a pause in the speech stream is not sufficient to signal a new intonation unit. For example, in their coding of a conversation between members of academia, Chafe and Danielewicz (1987, p. 95) indicate that clause structure takes precedence over pauses in determining intonation units:

Intonation Unit 1: [pause] I just this year have [pause] dropped down to teaching half time.
Intonation Unit 2: [pause] Which is what I've always wanted.

Thus, Chafe's criteria are not fully consonant with the way IM transmissions work. In analyzing IM, the closest analogue to a pause is the physical transmission of an IM message. Moreover, while Chafe's speech samples include both monologue and dialogue, the IM data are overwhelmingly dialogic.

CMC as Spoken or Written Discourse

Does CMC more closely resembles face-to-face speech or paradigmatic written language? Drawing upon the existing literature, which looked predominantly at data from email, bulletin boards, and computer conferencing, Baron (1998) concluded that as of the late 1990s, CMC was essentially a mixed modality. That is, it resembled speech in that it was largely unedited; it contained heavy use of first and second person pronouns, present tense, and contractions; its level of formality was generally low; and CMC language could be rude or even obscene. At the same time, CMC looked like writing because interlocutors were physically separated, and that separation fostered personal disclosure and helped level the conversational playing field between interlocutors at different points on a social hierarchy. Moreover, CMC resembled writing in that the medium was durable, and interlocutors commonly employed a wide range of lexical choices and complex syntax.

Crystal (2001) constructed a detailed analysis of distinct types of CMC - including web pages, email, chat, and virtual worlds (e.g., MUDs and MOOs) ⁵, comparing each with his own paradigmatic investigation of spoken and written language. Applying the term "Netspeak" to the collective forms of language used in CMC, Crystal concluded that "Netspeak has far more properties linking it to writing than to speech ... Netspeak is better seen as a written language which has been pulled some way in the direction of speech than as spoken language which has been written down" (2001, p. 47).

Both Baron's and Crystal's conclusions are based on findings by other researchers, and none of the studies referenced involved instant messaging. The present article uses original empirical data to study IM as a specific form of CMC.

While instant messaging began in the 1980s, the medium gained popularity with the introduction of ICQ in 1996 and then of America Online Instant Messenger (AIM) in 1997 (Baron, 2003; Herring, 2002). In the United States, AIM was the predominant IM platform among teenagers and young adults in the early 2000s, although MSN Messenger and Yahoo!Messenger were commonly used as well.

In writing about IM, it is necessary to be clear about the users whose behavior we are describing. The popularity of IM in the late 1990s was overwhelmingly due to adoption by teenagers and young adults of college age. Later, IM became increasingly common in the workplace (either for conducting business or for personal communication). However, one should not assume that the IM conversations of, say, young teenage girls are linguistically isomorphic with those of mid-level business managers.

Most studies of IM (e.g., Boneva, Quinn, Kraut, Kiesler, & Shklovski, 2006; Grinter & Paylen, 2002; Issacs, Walendowski, Whittaker, Schiano, & Kamm, 2002; Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001; Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000; Schiano, Chen, Ginsberg, Gretarsdottir, Huddleston, & Isaacs, 2002; Shiu & Lenhart, 2004) have looked at the social dimensions of the medium (e.g., who uses it, how often, for what purposes). With a few exceptions, there has been little detailed empirical analysis of the linguistic character of IM. Hård af Segerstad (2002) studied a limited IM system known as WebWho, which was designed for a Swedish university computing lab to indicate the presence of other users logged onto the system. In analyzing her corpus, Hård af Segerstad looked at word frequency and message content, but not at other linguistic characteristics of the conversations. Baron's (2004) analysis of American college student IM conversations is described later in this article. ⁶

Several other IM studies are suggestive as to the linguistic nature of IM. Randall (2002) commented on the use of emoticons, acronyms, and abbreviations, along with reduced attention to grammar in IM conversations. Jacobs (2003) noted that the American teenaged girl she observed sometimes edited her IM messages before transmitting them, a practice that Nardi et al. (2000) also reported among adults using IM in the workplace.

American University IM Corpus: General Findings on Discourse Scaffolding

I assembled a corpus of IM conversations constructed by college-aged young adults in the United States. ⁷ Before introducing the corpus, I define some terminology below.

Since there is no conventional linguistic terminology for describing IM data, I began by identifying appropriate units for analysis. The most important of these divisions is what I call the IM transmission unit. An IM transmission unit constitutes a segment of text that is composed and sent by one member of the IM conversational dyad. Linguistically, a transmission unit may correspond to one or more sentences (each composed of at least one independent clause) or to a sentence fragment. Each of the following examples from the corpus constitutes an IM transmission unit:

full sentence: whatever the case, i suggest that you not worry about sitting on the couches
multiple sentences: and the prof left-he forgot something in his office
sentence fragment: if the walls could talk

IM transmission units are somewhat analogous to Chafe's (1980, 1994) notion of intonation units in speech, in that both units divide larger utterances into smaller segments, although, as we will see later in the article, the comparison is not precise. Table 2 delineates the terminology adopted for analyzing the IM corpus in the present study. ⁹

Table 2. Terminology for IM analysis

The instant messaging corpus was collected in April 2003 from 22 college-aged undergraduate students who were attending school or had graduated the previous semester. Using America Online's freely downloadable program AIM (AOL Instant Messenger), IM conversations were initiated by a cohort of current students (or recent graduates) at American University in Washington, DC. These conversational initiators ("student experimenters") were asked to IM peers on their AIM Buddy List. ¹⁰ At the beginning of each conversation, initiators requested permission of their interlocutor to save the IM conversation that was to follow. Formal consent forms were distributed electronically to all parties (student experimenters and their conversational partners) at the end of the IM conversation. Both interlocutors were then given the opportunity to edit out any words or transmissions they wished removed from the corpus (an option rarely taken), ¹¹ and screen names were anonymized. Once the consent forms were completed, student experimenters electronically forwarded the IM conversation files (and consent forms) to a project computer site. Initial discussion in the IM conversations regarding the research project was eliminated from the data, thus precluding an analysis of conversational openings.

The corpus consisted of 23 distinct IM conversations. Nine conversations took place between females (FF) and nine between males (MM). An additional five conversations involved female/male dyads (FM). In a number of the FF and FM conversations, a single student experimenter conversed with several people on his or her Buddy List. Due to last-minute attrition among student experimenters, most of the MM conversations were between the same two interlocutors.

The 23 IM conversations contained a total of 2,185 IM transmission units, made up of 11,718 words. Some of the analyses discussed below were performed on the entire corpus, while others were restricted to comparison of the nine FF and nine MM conversations (together totaling 1,861 IM transmission units).

Linguistic Variables Analyzed

In the general study, three sets of linguistic variables were examined: discourse scaffolding (essentially, how conversations were constructed), lexical issues, and gender. I begin here with discourse scaffolding, since it is the foundation upon which the present study of utterance breaks is based. At the end of the article, I will summarize previously reported findings regarding lexical and gender issues, with the goal of creating a fuller profile of the linguistic nature of IM. Table 3 delineates the discourse scaffolding issues that were examined.

Table 3. Issues involving discourse scaffolding

Table 4 summarizes the use of individual transmission scaffolding.

Table 4. Transmissions summary

The aggregated data indicate that average IM transmissions are fairly short (5.4 words per transmission). Measured against Chafe and Danielewicz's findings (1987, p. 96) that spoken conversational intonation units averaged 6.2 words while the 'punctuation unit' for written academic papers averaged 9.3 words, the average IM transmission unit more closely resembles face-to-face speech.

Transmission-length averages obscure some of the important characteristics of contemporary college-student IM conversations, including the high proportion of one-word transmissions (21.8% of the FF and MM combined corpus). Similarly, some IM transmissions are quite lengthy, the longest in the corpus being 44 words. AIM has a technical limit of 1,024 characters per IM transmission, of which about 950 are available for the message (the remaining characters are used for formatting). If we assume an average word length of six characters, with each word then followed by one additional character (a space or punctuation mark), the 950-character limit permits roughly 136 words per IM transmission, which far exceeds the lengths appearing in the corpus.

Using AIM's time-stamping feature, I calculated both how long each conversation lasted and transmission rate. On average, there were 4.0 transmissions per minute. Given that the mean transmission length was 5.4 words, users averaged 21.6 words per minute.

Sequences and Utterance Chunking

I defined a sequence as one or more consecutive IM transmissions from the same interlocutor. If a sender's multiple transmission sequence was interrupted by a message from his or her interlocutor but the initial sender did not attend to the interruption, all consecutive transmissions dealing with the same theme were considered part of a single sequence. Table 5 summarizes the findings regarding sequence length and overall frequency of utterance chunking in the data.

Table 5. Sequences and utterance chunking

The first step in the analysis was to cluster the data into sequences. There were 1,292 sequences, built from the total 2,185 transmissions. Sequences ranged in length from 1 to 18 transmission units. The average number of transmission units per sequence was 1.7. Out of 1,292 sequences, 42% contained more than one transmission unit.

Almost one-sixth of the 2,185 transmissions (16.2%) constituted utterance break pairs, that is, consecutive transmissions that split an utterance into grammatical chunks. Later in this article, I examine the grammatical nature of these utterance breaks.

Table 6 presents findings on overall conversation length and length of closing sequences.

Table 6. Conversation length

As an aggregate, IM conversations are fairly lengthy, averaging over 93 transmission units apiece and lasting nearly 24 minutes. Individually, however, these conversations show enormous variety, ranging from quick three or four transmission volleys to discussions stretching over more than 200 transmissions and well over an hour. Moreover, although the communication channel may remain open for an extended period, interlocutors are not necessarily engaging with one another throughout that time. For example, one lengthy FF conversation (142 transmissions, 88 minutes) included a 15-minute gap when no transmissions occurred. ¹²

Much as in face-to-face spoken encounters (e.g., Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974), IM interlocutors often take a while before terminating a conversation. In this example of an IM conversational closing between female interlocutors, the sequence took 19 seconds:

On average, closing sequences involved seven transmissions and took nearly 32 seconds.

IM Utterance Break Analysis

I now turn to the question of how users chunk IM utterances into sequences of two or more IM transmission units. Specifically, I consider the syntactic composition of the second chunk in IM utterance break pairs with the goal of better understanding the spoken or written character of IM. I then compare these pair breaks with Chafe's notion of spoken intonation units and also investigate whether gender is a relevant variable in IM break pair usage.

The simplest case of a multi-turn IM transmission sequence is one that does not involve syntactic breaks. In the following sequence, the message sender continues to hold the floor, but the transmissions themselves are syntactically distinct:

Jill: awww...;-(
Jill: i'm sorry
Jill: if it makes you feel any better, i'm being held captive by two of Julie's papers

Contrast this example with sequential IM transmissions in which each transmission constitutes a chunk of a single utterance:

Joan: that must be nice
Joan: to be in love
Joan: in the spring

To study the syntactic nature of IM break pairs, a subset of the larger corpus was analyzed, consisting of all conversations between female interlocutors (FF) and between male interlocutors (MM) (i.e., eliminating mixed gender conversations). The nine FF conversations contained 1,097 transmissions, comprising 272 multi-transmission sequences. Within the nine MM conversations, there were 767 transmissions, composed of 182 multi-transmission sequences. The analysis had three components:

* tabulating the proportion of multi-transmission sequences containing utterance breaks
* tabulating the number of total transmissions involved in utterance breaks
* syntactically coding and analyzing the pairs of transmissions between whose chunks a syntactic break point occurred

Table 7 summarizes the proportion of multi-transmission sequences containing one or more utterance breaks.

Table 7. Multi-transmission sequences with utterance breaks

Out of 454 multi-transmission sequences in the combined FF and MM corpus, nearly 30% contained utterance breaks. To illustrate:

Transmission 1: he just played here in DC last weekend <BR>
Transmission 2: and by doing so he violated NCAA rules which gaurantees [sic] he is gonan [sic] go pro
Transmission 3: it's really sorta cool

An utterance break (<BR>) occurs between transmissions 1 and 2, but not between transmissions 2 and 3. Utterance breaks were more common among MM dyads (39%) than among FF dyads (22.4%). That is, if one tallies all sequences that contain at least two IM transmission units, male multi-turn transmissions were significantly more likely to contain a syntactic break than were female multi-turn transmissions (x ² (1) = 14.54, p <.0001).

The second step in the analysis focused on the break pairs themselves. Table 8 summarizes the total number of break pairs in the corpus and the relationship of IM transmissions involved in break pairs to the total number of transmissions in the combined FF and MM corpus.

Table 8. Total transmissions involving utterance breaks

The FF and MM corpus contained 189 utterance break pairs. Since each break pair is composed of two transmission units, one might have anticipated the total transmissions involved in break pairs to be 189 times two, i.e., 378. However, the same transmission unit was sometimes involved in two sequential break pairs. For example, in the multi-turn sequence

Transmission Unit 1: that must be nice
Transmission Unit 2: to be in love
Transmission Unit 3: in the spring

the second transmission unit ('to be in love') is a member of two different break pairs, i.e.,

Break Pair 1: that must be nice
to be in love

Break Pair 2: to be in love
in the spring

In the corpus, the total number of transmission units involved in break pairs was not 378 but 321.

Consistent with findings reported in Table 7, males tended to have more transmissions involved in break pairs than did females (22.9% of total transmission units vs. 13.2%). That is, if all transmission units involved in utterance break pairs are tallied and those totals are compared with the total number of IM transmissions in the corpus, males used significantly more transmission units involved in break pairs than did females (x ² (1) = 29.68, p < .00001).

The third part of the analysis entailed syntactically coding the second component of each of the 189 break pairs in the corpus. For example, in the break pair

to be in love
in the spring

the second transmission ('in the spring') serves as an adverbial prepositional phrase, modifying the verb phrase of the previous transmission. In the next section, I present the grammatical coding scheme used for analyzing the utterance break data.

A grammatical coding scheme was developed for analyzing break pairs. With one exception (addressed below), the coding scheme considered both members of the break pair in coding the syntactic function of the second member of the pair. Nearly all of the coding system followed standard definitions of grammatical categories (e.g., adjective, direct object) and sentential functions (e.g., and is a coordinating conjunction, while because is a subordinating conjunction). The overall grammatical model reflects a simplified subset of early transformational grammar (e.g., Chomsky, 1965) combined with terms from traditional grammatical models (e.g., 'independent clause,' 'subordinating conjunction'), with minor adaptations made to fit the data set. For reference purposes, each of the break pair sets was numbered within the FF and MM data sets, respectively (e.g., FF33 denotes the 33rd break pair set in the female-female corpus).

Table 9 displays the grammatical coding scheme, including examples of each subcategory. ¹³ Coding the 189 break point sets was generally straightforward. However, a few explanations of decisions made during the coding process render the data analysis more transparent.

Table 9. Grammatical coding scheme

Studies are needed that look at a much wider range of data, including larger and more balanced samples from college-aged subjects; IM conversations of younger users (e.g., middle school and high school students); and findings from adults doing IM in the workplace or communicating with family and friends. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the conversations of younger teenagers are more stylized (e.g., use more abbreviations, acronyms, and emoticons; have poorer spelling; use shorter transmission units) than those of college students, and that the older the users, the more likely their IMs will resemble formal email messages. It will also be of interest to see whether the linguistic characteristics of IM differ between users in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Given that many people in Europe and Asia were avid users of text messaging before taking up IM (the reverse has been true in the U.S.), it remains to be seen if American IM patterns will be reflected in cultures where mobile phone texting is already deeply entrenched. ¹⁵

Second, both deeper and broader linguistic analyses of IM corpora are needed. Among the structural features remaining to be analyzed are grammatical parameters (e.g., questions versus declaratives, grammatical complexity) and sentence mechanics (including punctuation, spelling errors, and self-corrections). With regard to discourse issues, there is a need to perform content analyses and study how interlocutors keep track of multiple conversational threads (cf. Herring, 1999).

Third, it will be important to compare IM conversations with informal speech and informal writing generated by the same demographic cohort. The author is presently analyzing informal speech and writing samples from American college students. The next step will be to collect a new college student IM corpus whose discourse topics match those of the speech and writing sample, thereby reducing the number of variables that currently make comparison of speech, writing, and IM problematic.

Fourth, while this article has reported suggestive differences in the ways male and female college students construct IM conversations, and has tentatively concluded that male IMs more closely resemble speech, while female IMs more generally look like written discourse, it has not explored reasons behind these differences or their implications. Are males, for example, more abrupt or disjointed in face-to-face informal spoken conversations than females - and, if so, why? Do females perceive themselves as putting more effort into the construction of their IM conversations than do males - and, again, if so, why? Is sexual orientation or personality type, not just biological gender, a relevant variable?

Finally, there is a need to compare empirical findings about the linguistic nature of IM with the growing body of research on other forms of computer-mediated communication, both with respect to specific linguistic properties (e.g., Herring, 1999, 2001; Rintel, Mulholland, & Pittam, 2001; Werry, 1996) and the issue of gender differences (cf. Boneva & Kraut, 2002; Herring, 2003; Ling, 2005). Only then will researchers be in a position to conclude how to characterize the linguistic properties of CMC in general and IM in particular.

I am grateful to Tim Clem, Scott Parker, Juliette Sligar, and Lauren Squires for their assistance at various points in data collection and analysis. Susan Herring's comments on an early draft of this article were invaluable, especially for focusing the comparison between IM and spoken discourse.

Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language and Communication, 18, 133-170.

Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it's heading. London and New York: Routledge.

Baron, N. S. (2003). Language of the Internet. In A. Farghali (Ed.), The Stanford handbook for language engineers (pp. 59-127). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Baron, N. S. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 397-423.

Baron, N. S. (2008). Adjusting the volume: Technology and multitasking in discourse control. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 177-193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boneva, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). Email, gender and personal relations. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 372-403). Oxford: Blackwell.

Boneva, B., Quinn, A., Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., & Shklovski, I. (2006). Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Computers, phones, and the Internet (pp. 201-218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chafe, W. (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 9-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chafe, W. (2001). The analysis of discourse flow. In D. Schriffrin, D. Tannen, & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 673-688). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 83-113). San Diego: Academic Press.

Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383-407.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic Language: A new variety of English. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Crystal, D. (1975). The English tone of voice. London: St. Martins.

Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating online. London: Berg.

de Siqueira, A., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Temporal patterns in student-advisor instant messaging exchanges: Individual variation and accommodation. Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. Retrieved September 12, 2009 from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/desiqueira.herring.2009.pdf

Ferrara, K., Brunner, H, & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8-34.

Grinter, R. E., & Palen, L. (2002). Instant messaging in teen life. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '02) (pp. 21-30). New Orleans, LA, November 16-20. New York: ACM Press.

Hafner, K. (2003). All quiet on campus save the click of keys. New York Times, August 14, Circuits Section p.1.

Hale, C., & Scanlon, J. (1999). Wired style: Principles of English usage in the digital age. New York: Broadway Books.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part II. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.

Hård af Segerstad, Y. (2002). Use and adaptation of written language to the conditions of computer-mediated communication. Department of Linguistics, Göteborg: Göteborg University.

Herring, S. C. (1998). Le style du courrier électronique: variabilité et changement. Revue d'aménagement linguistique (formerly Terminogramme), 84-85 (March), 9-16. French version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/terminogramme.1998.pdf . English version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/term.html

Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html .

Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schriffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Herring, S. C. (2002). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 109-168.

Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202-228). Oxford: Blackwell.

Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4, article 1. Retrieved September 12, 2010 from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761

Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., Whittaker, S., Schiano, D., & Kamm, C. (2002). The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '02) (pp. 11-20). New Orleans, LA. New York: ACM Press.

Jacobs, G. (2003). Breaking down virtual walls: Understanding the real space / cyberspace connections of language and literacy in adolescents' use of instant messaging. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.

Lee, J. (2002). I think, therefore IM. New York Times, September 19, Circuits Section p.1.

Lenhart, A, Rainie, L, & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf .

Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone's impact on society. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

Ling, R. (2005). The sociolinguistics of SMS: An analysis of SMS use by a random sample of Norwegians. In R. Ling & P. Pedersen (Eds.), Front-stage / back-stage: Mobile communication and the renegotiation of the social (pp. 335-350). London: Springer-Verlag.

Ling, R., & Baron, N. S. (2007). Text messaging and IM: A linguistic comparison of American college data. Journal of language and social psychology, 26, 291-298.

Maynor, N. (1994). The language of electronic mail: Written speech? In G. Little & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Centennial usage studies (pp. 48-54). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '00) (pp. 79-88). Philadelphia, PA. New York: ACM Press.

Randall, N. (2002). Lingo online: A report on the language of the keyboard generation. Department of English, University of Waterloo and msn.ca. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~nrandall/LingoOnline-finalreport.pdf .

Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J., & Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet relay chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/rintel.html .

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289-327.

Schiano, D., Chen, C., Ginsberg, J., Gretarsdottir, U., Huddleston, M., & Isaacs, E. (2002). Teen use of messaging media. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '02) (pp. 594-595). Minneapolis, MN. New York: ACM Press.

Shiu, E., & Lenhart, A. (2004). How Americans use instant messaging. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Instantmessage_Report.pdf .

Swerts, M., & Geluykens, R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech, 37, 21-43.

Tagliamonte, S., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech, 83, 3-34.

Tannen, D. (1982a). Oral and written strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58, 1-21.

Tannen, D. (1982b). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 1-16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Werry, C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yates, S. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Naomi S. Baron [ nbaron "at" american "dot" edu ] is a Professor of Linguistics at American University in Washington, DC. Author of Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, she is presently studying differences between reading in hard copy versus onscreen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discourse structures in Instant Messaging: The case of utterance breaks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Naomi S. Baron American University Both users of CMC and the popular press commonly assume that online platforms such as email and instant messaging (IM) mirror informal spoken language. The present study investigates the validity of this assumption by examining discourse structures in IM conversations between American college students.

# data[].attributes.body
https://activecollab.com/business-instant-messaging-guide/benefits-of-chat-in-business-communication

instant messaging also helps us in term of business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Benefits of Instant Messaging in Business Communication · ActiveCollab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Which tools are you using to communicate in the workplace? Chatting is a double-edged sword but could be very useful if used properly.

# data[].attributes.body
Instant messages have slangs, and are generally categories into two categories which are acronyms and contractions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Popular Texting Abbreviations: Acronyms & Contractions | EF English Live

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant message slang falls into 2 categories: acronyms & contractions. Once you understand these, you’ll be able to master Popular Texting Abreviations.

# data[].attributes.body
The language of instant messaging has been greatly modified and adapted to a more a abbreviated and simple form. It has given people a new way to express their feelings and exchange information.

# data[].attributes.body
The language of instant messaging are usually informal, playful, and abbreviated. Furthermore, instant messaging (IM) is used to emphasize a meaning over form and to enhance social relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many adults over the age of 30, the former groupings of letters would seem incoherent, but for a newer generation of technologically-savvy young adults it can say a lot.

"Instant messaging, or IM, is not just bad grammar or a bunch of mistakes," says Dr. Pamela Takayoshi, Kent State University associate professor of English. "IM is a separate language form from formal English and has a common set of language features and standards."

Takayoshi, Kent State associate professor of English Dr. Christina Haas and four Kent State undergraduate researchers examined the language of instant messaging. Using IM conversations produced by college students, the group analyzed and identified nonstandard features of the IM language, or the places where writers had used language features which varied from Standard Written English.

They found that what looked like nonstandard features of written language were, actually, the standardized features within the IM language. The language of instant messaging was found to be informal, explicit, playful, both abbreviated and elaborated, and to emphasize meaning over form and social relationships over content.

"When we look at the kinds of technology young people are using today," says Haas, "we see that many of those technologies - IM, blogs and Facebook - are writing technologies. Even the phone is used for writing now."

Currently, the Kent State team is extending their analysis of IM to the popular Web site Facebook.com to determine whether the site's language is similar or different to instant messaging standards.

Source: Kent State University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many adults over the age of 30, the former groupings of letters would seem incoherent, but for a newer generation of technologically-savvy young adults it can say a lot. "Instant messaging, or IM, is not just bad grammar or a bunch of mistakes," says Dr. Pamela Takayoshi, Kent State University associate professor of English.

# data[].attributes.body
Social Media and Language Change
What linguistic traits are different in social media?

Because they use chats, people write on the Internet in a very instant manner. No consideration is given before posting messages.
This changes into two different things: the idea that "the fewer characters the better" and the appearance of errors as a result of messages not being carefully read.

Anyone with any level of education can publish writing online.

There are websites like Twitter where the character count is restricted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social media and language change is a recurring topic of conversation. Too often, we hear opinions about how we express ourselves on new platforms. On many occasions we hear about the constant use of bad language in social media. But is this genuine? Are we damaging our writing, our richest means of expression, by using the Internet?

Written expression in the age of Internet

We should be conscious of the innovation that the Internet brings to our language. The language on social media is always written, which is an important point. Now anybody can write publicly (whether it is a large audience or not is another topic).

Only a few years ago, the availability of writing was much lower. If someone didn't publish what they had written, the only way to find it would be to read their diary. They didn't have these public domains.

How social media is changing language
The language of social media, as well as being a new type of writing, is completely different. This is because the language of social media is ingrained with orality.
We write in chats which have a dynamic more like a conversation with a neighbour, than a conversation from a book. And this transfers to other formats: we comment on posts while speaking in a chat, and the style rubs off. However, it is not difficult to spot a difference.

Who looks over a comment on Facebook? Some people use auto-correct to make sure their Facebook comment is written correctly. Ultimately, the language on social media is the written language most similar to orality that has ever existed.

And what happens to linguistic registers?

This brings us to another point. Now there is a new reality for written text: it is public and close to orality. We can then ask about social media and language change. What characteristics of language are different for social media?

On the Internet people write in an almost instantaneous manner, which comes from using the chats. There is no prior thought given before posting messages. This mutates in two forms: the idea of 'the fewer characters the better', and the emergence of errors because messages are not reviewed.

Any person, with any level of education, can write publicly on the Internet.

Platforms such as Twitter exist, which limit the number of characters you can use.

Not all posts are the same on every platform: in a chat, a comment on Facebook, an opinion post.

All these statements lead us to believe that new linguistic registers exist in written texts. How do we use language according to different contexts? We wouldn't speak the same way in a bar as we would if we were giving a talk about a technical topic, would we? So, this idea can be transferred to the language on social media.

What are the effects of Social Media on language?

Until now, written language had not been used every day in a colloquial context (apart from notes we may leave for our family on the kitchen table like 'I'm taking your keys').

When we speak with our friends and family in a light-hearted conversation, our speech is filled with inaccuracies and colloquialisms. And this appears to be what is happening with the language used on social media sites.

The social media effect on language has changed our forms of expression: written language has never been as close to oral language, and it has never been as easy to write for a big audience.

We understand social media sites to be an informal space, where friends and family communicate with each other. We don't pay too much attention to spelling: using informal language, for example, and using shortened words and abbreviations.

The issue for social media language analysis is the transference from what we say in private, colloquial conversations, to large audiences: a comment on Instagram can be seen by millions of people that we don't know. And there are plenty of people that don't write properly on these platforms.

We believe that to learn more about it, social media language analysis should focus on two things: Privacy, or those that we show our messages to, and understanding context, i.e., in what situations can we be colloquial?

Social media and language change

The written language has never been as close to oral language. It has also never been as easy for anyone to be able to write for a big audience.

We need to be aware of innovation to manage it well. This way, we will be able to sell on the Internet, by adapting our messages on social media for different markets.

Need help with content translation for your international social media profiles? Need social media language translation services? Don't hesitate and contact us, we can help!

About the author

Oscar Nogueras

Es el CEO de Ontranslation y dedica algunos ratos libres a escribir en este blog para compartir sus conocimientos sobre internacionalización, cross-border ecommerce y Traducción SEO. No es para menos, ya que entre su formación cuenta con una licenciatura en filología inglesa, un máster en tradumática, un posgrado en elearning y un MBA. En definitiva, una declaración de intenciones donde la cultura y los idiomas se sirven mezclados, no agitados.

RELATED POSTS

+ See all posts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Media and Language Change: mistakes or new terms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media and language change is a recurring topic of conversation. Too often, we hear opinions about how we express ourselves on new platforms. On many occasions we hear about the constant use of bad language in social media. But is this genuine? Are we damaging our writing, our richest means of expression, by using the Internet?

# data[].attributes.body
The language of instant messaging was found to be informal, explicit, playful, both abbreviated and elaborated, and to emphasize meaning over form and social relationships over content.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many adults over the age of 30, the former groupings of letters would seem incoherent, but for a newer generation of technologically-savvy young adults it can say a lot.

"Instant messaging, or IM, is not just bad grammar or a bunch of mistakes," says Dr. Pamela Takayoshi, Kent State University associate professor of English. "IM is a separate language form from formal English and has a common set of language features and standards."

Takayoshi, Kent State associate professor of English Dr. Christina Haas andfour Kent State undergraduate researchers examined the language of instant messaging. Using IM conversations produced by college students, the group analyzed and identified nonstandard features of the IM language, or the places where writers had used language features which varied from Standard Written English. They found that what looked like nonstandard features of written language were, actually, the standardized features within the IM language. The language of instant messaging was found to be informal, explicit, playful, both abbreviated and elaborated, and to emphasize meaning over form and social relationships over content.

"When we look at the kinds of technology young people are using today," says Haas, "we see that many of those technologies - IM, blogs and Facebook - are writing technologies. Even the phone is used for writing now."

Currently, the Kent State team is extending their analysis of IM to the popular Web site Facebook.com to determine whether the site's language is similar or different to instant messaging standards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many adults over the age of 30, the former groupings of letters would seem incoherent, but for a newer generation of technologically-savvy young adults it can say a lot. Researchers found that instant messaging is a unique language form differing from Standard Written English.

# data[].attributes.body
Instant messaging (IM) makes communications more easier. However there are other down side, such as unexplored emails, unread messages, sounds of notifications and allerts.

# data[].attributes.body
Language in Instant Messaging or IM is quite different compared to Standard English. It uses a lot of abbreviations and emoticons to show emotions. This way of having a conversation is convenient and more quick. Hence, a linguistics professor argues that the immediacy of instant messaging can hinder the development of serious personal exchanges, especially with the use of abbreviations and emoticons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Will eloquent phrases morph into truncated words? Will emoticons replace real emotions? Wired News takes a look at the popularity of instant messaging and what it means for communication. By Katie Dean.

# data[].attributes.body
In instant messaging, there are a lot of exaggerated and capitalized words used to convey emptions, as well as abbreviated sentences that form acronyms such as L.O.L.

This fall in line with Sharon Goodman's theory of Informalization, it can be seen when instant messaging, slang, phrases, acronyms are often used.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is instant messaging?

Instant messaging, often shortened to IM or IM'ing, is the exchange of near- real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Unlike chatrooms with many users engaging in multiple and overlapping conversations, IM sessions usually take place between two users in a private, back-and-forth style of communication.

A core feature of many instant messenger clients is the ability to see whether a friend or co-worker is online and connected through the selected service -- a capability known as . As the technology has evolved, many IM clients have added support for features such as file transfer and image sharing within an IM session.

Instant messaging differs from email in the immediacy of the message exchange. IM also tends to be session-based, having a start and an end. Because IM is intended to mimic in-person conversations, individual messages are often brief. Email, on the other hand, usually reflects a longer-form, letter writing style.

Instant messaging requires users to communicate via the same application.

How does instant messaging work?

Generally, IM users must know each other's username or screen name to initiate a session. Contact or buddy lists of frequent contacts can be created. Once the intended recipient has been identified and selected, the sender opens an IM window to begin the session.

For IM'ing to work as intended, users must be online at the same time, although nearly all instant messaging platforms enable asynchronous interactions between online and offline users. If offline messaging is not supported, attempting to IM an unavailable user results in a notification that the transmission cannot be completed. In addition, the intended recipient must be willing to accept instant messages. Most IM clients can be configured to reject certain users.

When a message is received, the instant messaging application alerts the recipient with a window -- often a pop-up window -- containing the incoming message. Or, depending on the user's settings, a window could indicate an IM has arrived along with a prompt to accept or reject it. Many IM clients notify the user with a distinctive sound, such as a chime or chirp. The user can also receive a visual notification, such as flashing the IM window or its taskbar icon when a message arrives.

In the past, IM clients were often based on proprietary protocols, requiring that users use the same communication software. However, the use of open standards is more common today, enabling multiplatform instant messaging systems, such as Pidgin and Trillian.

Another important shift in IM is the way in which it's accessed and delivered. These apps were long deployed as desktop clients that had to be downloaded and installed. Now, instant messaging is more often found as a feature within another web- or cloud-based service, such as Facebook, Gmail and Skype, or as a mobile app, such as WhatsApp Messenger.

Why is instant messaging used?

Instant messaging is used for real-time communication among users on the internet. Enterprise and consumer users find it an immediate, convenient and flexible alternative to email. IM'ing is faster than email and more direct than other asynchronous forms of communication. Users can IM from a range of devices, not just their phone.

Enterprise instant messaging systems let users indicate their availability, chat with each other, exchange documents and hold group meetings. Instant messaging is a key form of communication to keep remote workers connected and coordinate workflows. Applications that were primarily for other uses are expanding into IM. For instance, Zoom, which is primarily known for video conferencing, contains IM chat features, and the company is planning to expand its chat capabilities.

In a consumer context, instant messaging is a useful alternative to text and Short Message Service ( SMS) messages because a cellular network is not required for IM'ing. Many social media platforms incorporate IM features.

Chatbots are a variation on IM'ing. They mimic the user experience in an IM exchange, but instead of speaking with another person, the user is speaking to an automated program. Chatbots are used for automating simple customer service requests.

Applications like Pidgin and Trillian offer encrypted messaging, which can be used for off-the-record chats and sensitive data, like personal health information.

Instant messaging features

Text-based communication has been the chief function of instant messaging for a long time, but it is now one of many features. Other capabilities include the following:

Availability. Presence technology enables users to see the availability of their contacts. Many apps show if contacts are online or offline and if they have set their status to free or busy. Some clients let users set an away message and provide detail about their availability. In an active session, many apps indicate in real time when a user is typing.

Images. Many clients let users insert images and emojis into messages.

File transfer. Sending and sharing files is also a standard part of many IM apps. Facebook Messenger even lets users send money via IM.

Switching to other communication modes. Numerous instant messaging apps let IM users move to other modes of communication -- such as group chat, voice calls and video conferencing -- within the app.

What are the types of instant messaging?

IM applications are often standalone applications, such as WhatsApp. They can also be embedded applications with multiple purposes.

Instant messaging programs can differ based on the platform they are embedded in. For example, an instant messaging tool can be embedded into the following:

Social media. For example, Facebook Messenger has a list of Facebook friends that users can open a chat with in a pop-up window. On a mobile device, Facebook Messenger is a separate app that imports contacts from Facebook and displays them as a list.

Video conferencing. Zoom has a small chat window in the side of the video that can be used to chat with the whole group or an individual.

Gaming and streaming. Twitch is a streaming platform where users can stream live video and gameplay, alongside a chat window where they can interact with other users.

When they are standalone applications, they often incorporate cross-platform features, such as the following:

Some embedded programs have these cross-platform features as well. For example, Facebook Messenger has video chat.

Popular instant messaging software and platforms

While some instant messaging tools are specifically consumer services and other are for enterprises, crossovers do exist. The following is a list of popular consumer and enterprise instant messaging services:

AOL Instant Messenger, or AIM, was once one of the most popular tools in the instant messaging market in North America. It was discontinued on Dec. 15, 2017.

What is the difference between instant messaging and texting?

Both instant messaging and texting involve exchanging digital messages in real time. The two methods of communication are different, however.

Texting

Texting uses a cellular network to exchange messages. Two cellphone users can communicate via text using any cellular carrier -- the carriers do not need to be the same. The users do not need an internet connection, just cell carrier plans and cellphones. Cellular companies control the cost and message limits of communicating via text message.

Instant messaging

By contrast, instant messaging requires that both parties have internet connections to exchange messages. The communicating devices do not have to be phones -- they can be computers, tablets, smartphones or any other internet-connected device. IM apps often require users to communicate using the same application. A user cannot send a message on Facebook Messenger to a contact using Microsoft Teams. There may be a delay in message transmission without a proper internet connection.

Instant messaging is also frequently included as a feature of unified communication (UC) tools, like Zoom. Text messaging is less commonly included in these applications.

Instant messaging is a core component of enterprise unified communications tools that enable a high-quality remote work experience.
IM and chat tools are important pieces of a UC strategy. Learn how to implement, evaluate and manage UC in the enterprise.

Continue Reading About instant messaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Instant Messaging? - Definition from SearchUnifiedCommunications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant messaging, often shortened to IM or IM'ing, is the exchange of near- real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Unlike chatrooms with many users engaging in multiple and overlapping conversations, IM sessions usually take place between two users in a private, back-and-forth style of communication.

# data[].attributes.body
Instant messaging is the exchange of near-real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Instant messaging include availability (online/offline status), image, file transfer, voice calls and group chats. Instant messaging requires that both parties have internet connections to exchange messages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is instant messaging?

Instant messaging, often shortened to IM or IM'ing, is the exchange of near- real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Unlike chatrooms with many users engaging in multiple and overlapping conversations, IM sessions usually take place between two users in a private, back-and-forth style of communication.

A core feature of many instant messenger clients is the ability to see whether a friend or co-worker is online and connected through the selected service -- a capability known as . As the technology has evolved, many IM clients have added support for features such as file transfer and image sharing within an IM session.

Instant messaging differs from email in the immediacy of the message exchange. IM also tends to be session-based, having a start and an end. Because IM is intended to mimic in-person conversations, individual messages are often brief. Email, on the other hand, usually reflects a longer-form, letter writing style.

Instant messaging requires users to communicate via the same application.

How does instant messaging work?

Generally, IM users must know each other's username or screen name to initiate a session. Contact or buddy lists of frequent contacts can be created. Once the intended recipient has been identified and selected, the sender opens an IM window to begin the session.

For IM'ing to work as intended, users must be online at the same time, although nearly all instant messaging platforms enable asynchronous interactions between online and offline users. If offline messaging is not supported, attempting to IM an unavailable user results in a notification that the transmission cannot be completed. In addition, the intended recipient must be willing to accept instant messages. Most IM clients can be configured to reject certain users.

When a message is received, the instant messaging application alerts the recipient with a window -- often a pop-up window -- containing the incoming message. Or, depending on the user's settings, a window could indicate an IM has arrived along with a prompt to accept or reject it. Many IM clients notify the user with a distinctive sound, such as a chime or chirp. The user can also receive a visual notification, such as flashing the IM window or its taskbar icon when a message arrives.

In the past, IM clients were often based on proprietary protocols, requiring that users use the same communication software. However, the use of open standards is more common today, enabling multiplatform instant messaging systems, such as Pidgin and Trillian.

Another important shift in IM is the way in which it's accessed and delivered. These apps were long deployed as desktop clients that had to be downloaded and installed. Now, instant messaging is more often found as a feature within another web- or cloud-based service, such as Facebook, Gmail and Skype, or as a mobile app, such as WhatsApp Messenger.

Why is instant messaging used?

Instant messaging is used for real-time communication among users on the internet. Enterprise and consumer users find it an immediate, convenient and flexible alternative to email. IM'ing is faster than email and more direct than other asynchronous forms of communication. Users can IM from a range of devices, not just their phone.

Enterprise instant messaging systems let users indicate their availability, chat with each other, exchange documents and hold group meetings. Instant messaging is a key form of communication to keep remote workers connected and coordinate workflows. Applications that were primarily for other uses are expanding into IM. For instance, Zoom, which is primarily known for video conferencing, contains IM chat features, and the company is planning to expand its chat capabilities.

In a consumer context, instant messaging is a useful alternative to text and Short Message Service ( SMS) messages because a cellular network is not required for IM'ing. Many social media platforms incorporate IM features.

Chatbots are a variation on IM'ing. They mimic the user experience in an IM exchange, but instead of speaking with another person, the user is speaking to an automated program. Chatbots are used for automating simple customer service requests.

Applications like Pidgin and Trillian offer encrypted messaging, which can be used for off-the-record chats and sensitive data, like personal health information.

Instant messaging features

Text-based communication has been the chief function of instant messaging for a long time, but it is now one of many features. Other capabilities include the following:

Availability. Presence technology enables users to see the availability of their contacts. Many apps show if contacts are online or offline and if they have set their status to free or busy. Some clients let users set an away message and provide detail about their availability. In an active session, many apps indicate in real time when a user is typing.

Images. Many clients let users insert images and emojis into messages.

File transfer. Sending and sharing files is also a standard part of many IM apps. Facebook Messenger even lets users send money via IM.

Switching to other communication modes. Numerous instant messaging apps let IM users move to other modes of communication -- such as group chat, voice calls and video conferencing -- within the app.

What are the types of instant messaging?

IM applications are often standalone applications, such as WhatsApp. They can also be embedded applications with multiple purposes.

Instant messaging programs can differ based on the platform they are embedded in. For example, an instant messaging tool can be embedded into the following:

Social media. For example, Facebook Messenger has a list of Facebook friends that users can open a chat with in a pop-up window. On a mobile device, Facebook Messenger is a separate app that imports contacts from Facebook and displays them as a list.

Video conferencing. Zoom has a small chat window in the side of the video that can be used to chat with the whole group or an individual.

Gaming and streaming. Twitch is a streaming platform where users can stream live video and gameplay, alongside a chat window where they can interact with other users.

When they are standalone applications, they often incorporate cross-platform features, such as the following:

Some embedded programs have these cross-platform features as well. For example, Facebook Messenger has video chat.

Popular instant messaging software and platforms

While some instant messaging tools are specifically consumer services and other are for enterprises, crossovers do exist. The following is a list of popular consumer and enterprise instant messaging services:

AOL Instant Messenger, or AIM, was once one of the most popular tools in the instant messaging market in North America. It was discontinued on Dec. 15, 2017.

What is the difference between instant messaging and texting?

Both instant messaging and texting involve exchanging digital messages in real time. The two methods of communication are different, however.

Texting

Texting uses a cellular network to exchange messages. Two cellphone users can communicate via text using any cellular carrier -- the carriers do not need to be the same. The users do not need an internet connection, just cell carrier plans and cellphones. Cellular companies control the cost and message limits of communicating via text message.

Instant messaging

By contrast, instant messaging requires that both parties have internet connections to exchange messages. The communicating devices do not have to be phones -- they can be computers, tablets, smartphones or any other internet-connected device. IM apps often require users to communicate using the same application. A user cannot send a message on Facebook Messenger to a contact using Microsoft Teams. There may be a delay in message transmission without a proper internet connection.

Instant messaging is also frequently included as a feature of unified communication (UC) tools, like Zoom. Text messaging is less commonly included in these applications.

Instant messaging is a core component of enterprise unified communications tools that enable a high-quality remote work experience.
IM and chat tools are important pieces of a UC strategy. Learn how to implement, evaluate and manage UC in the enterprise.

Continue Reading About instant messaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Instant Messaging? - Definition from SearchUnifiedCommunications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant messaging, often shortened to IM or IM'ing, is the exchange of near- real-time messages through a standalone application or embedded software. Unlike chatrooms with many users engaging in multiple and overlapping conversations, IM sessions usually take place between two users in a private, back-and-forth style of communication.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/linguistic-features-in-instant-messaging-english-language-essay.php

In a phenomenon known as instant messaging, people have adapted to use the English language differently. The result are the creation of acronyms like "lol" and 'omg" along with abbreviations similar to,"people" to"ppl" or "because"to"BCS". These shortened words and phrases reflect on the personality of the subject as people who have been using instant messaging for prolonged periods of time develop these characteristics or habits. The implications of this may result in declining academic performance in language, when most of the time, the subject continually uses non-standard and informal communication.

# data[].attributes.body
Shortened words, phrases, and symbols that are usually used in instant messaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In today's digital age, text messaging and online chat have become an integral part of our daily communication. Along with this, a new language has emerged - one that is shortened, abbreviated, and full of acronyms. Known as SMS language or textese, this form of communication is characterized by the use of text abbreviations and acronyms to save time and space when sending messages.

Texting and Chat Abbreviations

What are SMS language?

SMS language, also known as textese or txt language, is a form of communication that uses shortened words, phrases, and symbols to save time and space when sending text messages or instant messages. It is characterized by the use of text abbreviations and acronyms, such as "LOL" for "laugh out loud" or "BRB" for "be right back." This style of communication is often used in informal, personal conversations and has become increasingly popular with the rise of mobile phones and instant messaging.

SMS language is different from formal written language and it is informal, it may be challenging for some people to understand and it may not be appropriate for all situations, such as in professional or academic contexts. It's important to be aware of the audience and context when using SMS language and to use it with care.

Why do People Use SMS Language?

Three features of early mobile phone messaging encouraged users to use chat abbreviations:

Text entry was difficult, requiring multiple key presses on a small keypad to generate each letter;

Messages were limited to 160 characters; and

It made texting faster.

Once it became popular it took on a life of its own and was often used outside of its original context. At its peak, it was the cause of vigorous debate about its potentially detrimental effect on literacy, but with the advent of alphabetic keyboards on smartphones its use, and the controversies surrounding it, have receded and died off.

List of Common Chat Abbreviations

Here is a list of some common chat abbreviations in English:

ASAP - as soon as possible

BRB - be right back

BTW - by the way

CUL8R - see you later

FWIW - for what it's worth

FYI - for your information

IDK - I don't know

JK - just kidding

L8R - later

LMK - let me know

LOL - laugh out loud

NP - no problem

OMG - oh my god

OMW - on my way

PLZ - please

ROTFL - rolling on the floor laughing

THX - thanks

TMI - too much information

TTYL - talk to you later

WB - welcome back

AFAIK - as far as I know

B4N - bye for now

BBL - be back later

BBS - be back soon

CU - see you

CYT - see you tomorrow

F2F - face to face

G2G - got to go

HAND - have a nice day

IC - I see

IDC - I don't care

IRL - in real life

J/K - just kidding

KISS - keep it simple stupid

L8 - Late

LMAO - Laughing My Ass Off

NRN - no reply necessary

OIC - Oh, I see

PLS - please

PM - private message

POS - parent over shoulder

ROFL - Rolling On the Floor Laughing

SOOB - straight out of the box

TTYS - talk to you soon

U - you

W/ - with

WBU - what about you

YW - you're welcome

Origins of SMS Language

The origins of SMS language can be traced back to the early days of text messaging and mobile phones. In the early 1990s, when text messaging first became available on mobile phones, the messages were limited to 160 characters, and this limitation encouraged users to find ways to shorten their messages to save space. As text messaging became more popular and the character limit increased, this style of communication continued to evolve.

The first text message was sent on December 3rd, 1992, by a software engineer named Neil Papworth, who sent "Merry Christmas" to the Vodafone director Richard Jarvis.

SMS language also evolved as a way for people to communicate quickly and efficiently using their mobile phones. The small screens and cramped keyboards of early mobile phones made typing difficult, and the limited number of characters allowed in a message further encouraged the use of abbreviations and acronyms.

Popular Chat Abbreviations | Image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SMS Language: Texting and Chat Abbreviations - ESLBUZZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In today's digital age, text messaging and online chat have become an integral part of our daily communication. Along with this, a new language has emerged - one that is shortened, abbreviated, and full of acronyms. Known as SMS language or textese, this form of communication is characterized by the use of text abbreviations and acronyms to save time and space when sending messages.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic of the test i would guess is either a text about online messaging in the book or some random person texting a friend or family that might contain comedy.

According to the source
Face-to-face message constructions are characterized by a complex, spontaneous, simultaneous, and immediate collage of verbal, nonverbal and oral symbols. In contrast, computer-mediated message constructions are characterized by written, deliberate, and delayed symbols

The samples of instant messaging conversations in a personal setting will have more language deconstruction such as abbreviations, no capital letters or punctuation, improper grammar, incomplete sentences, spelling errors, and a greater use of emoticons than the business/professional related conversations.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic for the unit test is online messaging, definition is when people communicate with each other through long distances example, from different town, what we use as communication is online messaging. Repeating letters (“yeahhhhhh,” “lmaoooooooo,” etc.) have a certain logic to them too. We tend to lengthen the last letter in a word or abbreviation (as you can see in the example), but when we don’t, we usually lengthen the last letter in a sound. You’d write “loveeee” or “loooove,” but “lovvvve” seems a bit wrong, in the same way “vncxmvnxcmvn” does.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Linguistics of Texting: Because Internet - The Phoenix

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why do grandparents always text … kind of like this … with the dots … and use them to separate phrases? Why does everyone feel the need to type “lol” even when they’re not laughing? And why does a period at the end of a text message feel so passive-aggressive? I’ve wondered about the answers to thes…

# data[].attributes.body
Instnat messaging that allows us to chat may involved some risk. one of the biggest concern is internet safety. Unless the software is using end-to-end encription we cannot asume the safety of our privacy. People can easily hack or give virus to the software and steal infomation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instant messaging (IM) allows you to 'chat' in real time over the internet in a similar way to mobile phone text messages, but with many systems now also enabling voice and video calls. Some of the best-known dedicated messaging platforms are WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal and Wickr. Instant messaging is also available as a function of many gaming, dating, video calling and other platforms.

As well as being private chat spaces, instant messaging platforms have also become more akin to social media platforms and applications in their own right. Already popular before the COVID-19 pandemic, their use increased dramatically with the need to replace face-to-face contact and share topical content with either individual contacts or groups.

Like many things we do online, however, there can be risks in using instant messaging

People online are not necessarily who they say they are or seem to be. This is more likely to be the case with chat or messaging facilities on gaming or other non-dedicated platforms. However, scammers and others have also recently taken to using dedicated messaging platforms to impersonate victims' genuine contacts by messaging them claiming to have changed their phone number, gaining their trust then defrauding them.

Somebody persuading you to download and run virus-infected software.

Eavesdropping on your conversations. Unless the messaging application or app features end-to-end encryption, there is no guarantee of privacy.

Messaging software may be vulnerable to virus or other attack.

Online chat rooms - accessible through instant messaging - can be riddled with abusive, offensive or otherwise inappropriate conversations.

Using instant messaging safely

Never give out passwords, credit card information or other private data.

If you receive a message on an instant messaging platform that a contact has changed their phone number, call them on the number you know to be correct to check, to avoid the possibility of sharing private information with - or being scammed by - an impostor.

Block strangers. If your software allows it, set up the system so that only people on your 'allow' list can contact you.

Be very wary of disclosing any private information to a stranger you meet via instant messaging. Even apparently innocent information like the name of your employer can be used against you by fraudsters.

Never click on links that you receive through instant messaging from people that you do not know and trust, and that you have never met in real life.

Leave your online profile blank, or where you have to enter data to use the system, enter fictitious data to safeguard confidential details.

Do not use your system or email password to log on to an instant messaging platform.

Never use instant messaging to transmit information such as credit card numbers or other sensitive information, even if it is end-to-end encrypted. You never know who messages will be forwarded to, even if in innocence.

Disable automatic downloads.

Verify information elsewhere that you receive on instant messaging, in particular security advice.

Keep messaging software and apps up to date. Better still, set them to update automatically.

Do not let young children use instant messaging chat rooms unsupervised. Check the lower age limits of messaging software and apps.

Find this post useful? Share below to help raise awareness.

Encrypted

The process of converting data into cipher text (a type of code) to prevent it from being understood by an unauthorised party.

Instant messaging

Chat conversations between two or more people via typing on computers or portable devices. Systems include BlackBerry Messenger, Facebook Chat, MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instant messaging (IM) allows you to 'chat' in real time over the internet in a similar way to mobile phone text messages , but with many systems now also enabling voice and video calls . Some of the best-known dedicated messaging platforms are WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal and Wickr.