WhatsApping in Tongues

By

Obododimma Oha

From my daily deluge of WhatsApp messages, I received an interesting sharing that had something very relevant to my discipline, especially the focus on the various modes of textual and visual communication on WhatsApp. A number of ideas resurrected at once, some more inspired by the share: first, multivoicedness of social media interactions; second, the interaction and conversation of textual and other media of communication; the interesting “syntax” that each and these jointly involve in making meaning: and third, the plural nature of the visual modes of communication on WhatsApp. You can even list more, for instance, the interesting nature of the symbolization of these visual modes or the logic of their use.

One engaging feature of social media forms is the evolving multimodality. Interactants on social media and on the Internet generally desire to compensate for those fine moods that go with face-to-face communication, and which writing (in text only) seems to inhibit. Thus, literary artists in their works are forced to add expressions that best describe the behaviours they are talking about. But with the revolutions in Internet technology, it has become possible to mimick those forms of behaviour or to suggest that they apply in ways that those with whom we are interacting can signify that they possess the requisite competence and are able to decode. 

Does each technology of writing not come with its demands, its headaches? Do these demands not include competence in the type of writing or interaction? In the past, the piece of chalk was identified with literacy. In Igbo discourse, that literacy was even literalized: an expression that challenged addressees about their literacy was the one that asked, "ị gbajiri chọọkụ" ("Did you break a piece of chalk?"), which was a way of asking, “Did you go to school?” or “Are you literate?” A related question was, “I tiwara sleeti?” ("Did you break a slate?”). The piece of chalk was easily broken by learners when writing on slates. Teachers writing on blackboards broke them. Slates could be broken by learners who have to cry all the way home, or the slates might become weapons and be broken when knocked on the heads of fellow pupils in a fight. Then, from slate came the pencil and the breaking of pencils. Pencils have a wooden part and could easily be broken carelessly or intentionally (by a child who taught that the fastest way to divide one or share one was to use the hand and just break the writing material. Pen, next. Pen? It was identified with “senior pupils” who were up to the age and pride of writing with something that had no eraser. A pen could be broken, too, and that would give rise to the question, “ị gbajiri mkpịsị akwụkwọ?” or “ị gbajiri peenụ?” But pen became the major symbol of literacy to the public. The educated person came to be identified with the pen, teachers with the red pen stuck in the pocket like AK-47 slung across the shoulder!

This was decades before the coming of electronic writing or its reading. But as a form of technology, electronic writing created its own challenges. One could recall the case of a friend who courageously and excitedly finished typing a document with his computer that was housed in an iron cage to ward off profane rogues. This friend mistakenly pressed a button and his document disappeared! He sweated and sweated in searching for the invisible document, but could not find it. It was painful. Then, he swore never to touch a computer again. I don’t know whether he has lifted the oath yet today. He could still be in that analogue world of pieces of chalk and slates and pencils and pens. Same way that some societies that have refused to move up continue to swear to uphold other century-old practices in the modern world.

So, as an apprentice just learning WhatsApp communication so as to escape from the analogue world, I am excited to receive a message that reflected some linguistic or semiotic ideas. The WhatApp share goes thus:

The interactants, Mike and Dora, are not prisoners of analogue culture. They have already embraced electronic communication and digital culture. So, one is not surprised that they are using modes of message sharing made possible by WhatsApp.

Further, both Mike and Dora have appear to have balanced competence in the use and comprehension of visual WhatApp emoticons and their ordering, as well as the textual messaging. As we can also see, both are guided by the choice of the appropriate, whether in textual messaging or the visual.

Another important observation is that each, in using a different mode, could still decode the other mode and understand what the other person is trying to “say.” It is like living in different apartments or apartments with different furnishings, yet being able to feel at home as neighbour visiting neighbour.

But, each is mindful of the order of the choice made and the order used in presenting the message in the other mode. Each, in fact, monitors the other and monitors the message. This implicitly involves monitoring the modality of the message.

There was a period when electronic writing called for the compensation of the textual with visuality and users started experimenting and using language to create and suggest moods in the electronic text. That was before many emoticons emerged and today, there are even many apps presenting various forms of emoticons. However, there are still hindrances. For instance, in writing this essay, I copied and pasted the conversation from WhatsApp on my Word. The version of Word that I used could not realise or show the emoticons used by Dora in the interaction. Those it could not show were simply  indicated with the question mark. Then, I thought of another strategy so as to be able to reflect the emoticons on my blog: re-save it in pdf format and then upload it to my blog or copy and paste the original WhatsApp message on the blog page (or when I paste the "unseen" on the Internet page where it could be seen, the problem would be a bit solved!). Interesting solution, but I pity those who would want to copy and paste where all the emoticons would not show.

We are getting on gradually in this galaxy, exploring possibilities. If I were another alien from another galaxy, these scribbles and emoticons would be undecipherable and meaningless. If I were to encounter another being from another galaxy, I would possibly scan the entity and possibly know the intentions of the entity or misread them!