




































 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 67 

 

A GENRE ANALYSIS OF FACEBOOK CONVERSATION 

ON STUDENTS POLITICS  

 

Ojonugwa Sunday Joseph 
Department of Arts Education 

Kogi State University 

Email: Ugwa4christ70@yahoo.com 

Abstract 

This study examines the communicative terms of Facebook 

conservation among students of Kogi State University, Anyigba. 

These terms constitute the social function, the schematic 

structure and linguistic features. The theoretical framework for 

this study stems from the Generic Structure Potential (GSP) by 

Halliday and Hasan (1989). Purposive or deliberate sampling 

was used in selecting the data. The data selected were analysed 

using descriptive and analytical method after segmenting the 

data into clauses. Twelve (12) clauses were found. The analysis 

of the clauses found showed that the social function of Facebook 

conversation focuses on certain topics of interest. The analysis 

further revealed that the schematic structure of Facebook 

conversation deals with Greeting (G) – Opening Conversation 

(OC), Bringing the Topic (BT), Discussion (D), Pre-closing (Pc) 

and  Farewell (F). Lastly, the study revealed 14 linguistic 

features, which are commonly used by Facebook users. The 

work therefore concludes that Facebook conversation is a 

representation of a socio-cultural event embedded in a context of 

situation. 

Keywords: Facebook Conversations, Students Politics, 

situational variable, Genre and Systemic Functional Linguistic 

(SFL). 

 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 68 

 

Introduction  

The beauty of language is in its inner characteristics. Language 

never exists apart from the social fact, for it is a semiological 

phenomenon. Its social nature is one of its inner characteristics 

(Saussure, 77). The primary function of language has gone 

beyond “communication” to “purposeful communication with 

social significance”. Taiwo observes that language is the most 

vital tool in the hands of a man and a conveyer belt of social 

power that he uses to create a meaningful environment for 

himself. 

Nowadays, everyone can witness how man has used internet to 

create a beautiful and educative environment for himself, which 

has reduced the stress in the means of communication. One of 

the top social networking websites these days is the Facebook 

which is also called technologically mediated communication. 

An information technology – aided conveyance or processing of 

messages, is a pragmatic/digital domain with multi-faceted 

layers of interpretability, which contrasts face-to-face 

communication. Conventional communication according to 

Coates is usually done face to face between two or more people. 

However, the internet has provided a bridge for everyone around 

the world to communicate. The online media communications, 

which one of them is Facebook, facilitates her users to have 

instant messaging or so-called online chatting, like a real face-

to-face communication (134). 

In communicating, Coates (169), following Labov, asserts that 

language change occurs “when a new linguistic form, used by 

some sub-group within a speech community is adopted by other 

members of that community and accepted as the norm”. This is 

where the internet takes an important role as a media liaison for 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 69 

 

its users who are facilitated to communicate with people from all 

over the world in making a new linguistic form. 

When a means of communication is established between two 

people, particularly via online conversation, certain result is 

usually produced, which is a discourse that has various topics 

whenever a communication is begun in another time or even in 

the same time, similar stages of how to open a communication, 

to sustain the communication, and also to close the 

communication. In addition, it can be found that this discourse 

has many unique features of language. One of the reasons is 

because online conversation is basically in the form of written 

text, but seen through the language used, it appears to be a type 

of spoken discourse. 

Fairclough qtd. in Yohana (2) opines that genre analysis is ‘a 

socially ratified way of using language in connection with a 

particular type of social activity’. This obviously explains that 

Facebook conversation is also a type of social activity, because 

it involves two or more people interacting with each other using 

language.  Motivated by Eggin and Slade’s theory, Yohana (3), 

stated that chat cannot be characterized in generic terms, the 

researcher was challenged to take a study on chatting. However, 

online chatting was taken as the subject of the study. 

Furthermore, Martin states that ‘a genre is a stage, goal oriented, 

purposeful activity in which speakers engage as members of our 

culture’(43). This means that online conversation has a goal to 

achieve, it has a platform or stage and also a certain language 

use. Therefore, this study aims at discovering the social function 

(goal), the schematic structure (stages) and the linguistic features 

of the language used in Facebook conservations. 

 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 70 

 

Digital Discourse 

Digital discourse offers a distinctly sociolinguistic perspective 

on the nature of language in digital technologies. It starts by 

simply bringing new media sociolinguistics up to date, 

addressing current technologies like instant messaging, text 

messaging, blogging, photo-sharing, mobile phones, gaming, 

social network sites, and video sharing. According to Pilar and 

Patricia, digital discourse lies at the intersection of (none) 

language resources, society and technology (6). This helps 

digital researchers draw on a range of diverse socially – oriented 

language disciplines, whose methods and research tools may 

need to be critically assessed and reflectively adapted, and 

perhaps also expanded and even combined with others to 

suitably account for the communicative practices that occur in 

the digital world and embeddedness within the social world at 

large. 

Discourse, in our view, is concerned with “social practice” 

(Fairclough, 28). Rather than language in use, as it was 

originally – and more narrowly – conceived, as it concerns itself 

with how multimodal, multisemiotic resources are employed to 

enact identifies, activities and ideologies in the digital world, as 

part of a larger society world (Gee, 20). According to Thulow 

(23), a key objective of digital discourse is to show how it 

studies attends to both micro-level linguistic practices and more 

macro – level social processes; by the same token, scholars in 

the field are increasingly interested in understanding how 

language intersects with other modes of communication. 

Putting ‘language’ in its place – and following the lead of those 

scholars already mentioned – it is essential to recognise that 

discourse is interested in language only in so far as it illuminates 

social and cultural processes (Bucholtz  and Hall, 8). In other 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 71 

 

words, the primary concern is not with the abstract, grammatical 

language of linguistics, but rather the everyday functions and 

uses of language. 

It is for the above reasons that we tend to use the term discourse 

(Cuplan, 18). In linguistically – oriented discourse analysis there 

is typically a shared commitment to the following; the social 

functions of language, the interactional accomplishment of 

meaning, the significance of communicator intent, and the 

relevance of context. 

Facebook Technology  

Facebook is a type of technology that is commonly used on 

specific mobile phones and computers. Since the smart phones 

became popular, many messaging services were launched, 

Facebook remains the most popular of all (Abosede, 395). This 

application is highly addictive and can create a great impact on 

regular users. Facebook messenger’s functionality has recently 

been improved upon. It is available on Blackberry, Nokia 

phones, windows phone and phones. For users to get started, 

send a friend request or accept a friend request of an intended 

person. Facebook uses a variety of services, tools, and 

programming languages to make up its core infrastructure. As 

far as customization is concerned, Facebook has developed a 

custom partitioning scheme in which a global ID is assigned to 

all data. They have also a got of custom archiving scheme that is 

based on how frequent and recent data is one a per user basis. 

Most data is distributed randomly (Zuckerberg, 40). 

People often press their phones while walking, in buses, on their 

beds; to mention but a few, to converse on Facebook. It is one of 

the most popular chat applications in the world today. People 

have thousands of chatting messages, photos, videos and audio 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 72 

 

attachments on their Facebook account, birthday wishes, 

marriage wishes, naming ceremonies are all celebrated on the 

Facebook. The development of digital technology has facilitated 

easier communication between people and organizations. 

Facebook is used for various purposes like commercial, teaching 

of students, friendship interactions among others. It allows direct 

interactions. 

Social Media 

Social media can be defined as forms of electronic 

communication through which users interact among people in 

which they create, freely share, exchange and discuss 

information, ideas, personal messages and other content about 

each other and their lives using a multimedia mix of personal 

words, pictures, videos and audio, utilizing online platforms 

while they are connected to the internet. Social media, according 

to Kuppuswamy (10) is a virtual platform for interactivity and 

information exchange…where issues are shared, debated and 

defined. According to Adebola, social media users collaborate in 

content creation (72). It is proactive in media participation. 

Social media includes Facebook, WhatsApp, Linkedin, Twitter, 

Myspace, YouTube among others and all these are available to 

as many that want it. 

Linguistic Genre 

Genre studies according to Richard (40), is an academic subject 

which studies genre theory in several different fields. Linguistic 

genre studies is best described by two schools of literary genre; 

the systemic functional linguistics or “SFL”, scholars of this 

school believe that language structure is an integral part of a 

text’s social context and function. English for specific purposes 

or “ESP” is another. The scholars for this school believe that 

genre studies help the non-native English speakers on how to use 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 73 

 

the language and its conventions through the application of 

genre analysis, the identification of discourse elements such as 

register, formation of conceptual and genre structures, modes of 

thought and action that exist in the specific discourse 

community. 

Genre, according to Eggins qtd. in Ezeifeka is “the staged, 

structured way in which people go about achieving goals using 

language” (42). It is a culturally recognised form of discourse 

that follows socially agreed structures with distinct 

communicative purposes. Genres are very important in our 

everyday life and we do not realize how much we use them, how 

much they affect us, how much they determine the way we act 

and understand the others. Martin confirms this when he states 

that ‘a genre is a staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity in 

which speakers engage as members of our culture’ and ‘genres’ 

are how things get done, when language is used to accomplish 

them (248). 

Theoretical Framework  

This work adopts Generic Structure Potential Theory. The 

theory was propounded by Halliday and Hassan in 1989. The 

theory states that language structure is an integral part of a text’s 

social context and function. Fairclough (14) once stated that 

genre analysis is ‘a socially ratified way of using language in 

connection with a particular type of social activity’. This 

obviously explains that Facebook conversation is also type of 

social activity, because it involves two or more people 

interacting with each other using language. According to 

Ezeifeka, every text is supposed to have a “generic structure” or 

“schematic structure” which delineates its discourse community 

(42). From the above, it is obvious that two different discourse 

communities may likely not to have the same generic or 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 74 

 

schematic structure. This tradition influence how language is 

used in diverse situations, with that of Facebook conservation 

not an exception. 

Methodology  

The researcher made a deal with the students of Kogi State 

University, Anyigba particularly, students from the department 

of Arts Education, in communication in order to get permission 

to use their Facebook conversations. The researcher searched 

several conversations between two persons to be used as the 

data, each taken from the researcher’s students’ Facebook 

account. From the accounts collected, four Facebook 

conversations were chosen for analysis. The data collected were 

analysed within the purview of Halliday and Hassan (1989) 

Generic Structure Potential Theory (GSP). The data were 

segmented into clauses, identifying each conversation using 

SFL’S metafunctions to find the social function, the schematic 

structure and the linguistic features.  

Data Presentation, Analysis and Results 

Grace:  I want to ask if you have picked the interest and 

nomination forms. 

Eleojo:  That’s a good decision  

Grace  I was told it’s now available with the eleco 

chair… 

Eleojo:  hope you have picked? 

You’re not serious.  

Grace:  Yeahhh....hehehehe. I met your guy yesterday but 

he failed to recognize me. What department is 

that guy self? 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 75 

 

 Hmmm--- questionnaire grace, have you  

Eleojo:  Shuu! Management nan. 

Grace: I am hanging out for a while.. 

In the conversation above, Grace recalled her 

experience with her friend’s guy, whom she has 

met the previous day. They discussed with each 

other and played into each other’s private life. 

Grace opened the conversation by telling Eleojo 

her experience with her guy until they all 

ventured into each other’s private life.  

Fave:  Hi... Grace you chose to go and hide since after 

graduation.  

Grace:  I know, updating status is your hubby..... Since 

last week, you have updated more than 10 times.  

If had gone hiding, how will I have known that 

you update your status regularly. 

Fave:  Tnks, talk much later – stay cool 

In the conversation above, Grace conversed with 

her mate, Eleojo. They both have known each 

other for a long period of time. They conversed 

about the departmental elections. A critical look 

at the conversations, revealed again that Grace 

conversed with her close friend. They talked 

about situation after their graduation. 

Summary 

The social function of Facebook conversation is to discuss 

something under one or more certain topics. It is the contextual 

feature that relates to the subject matter of the conversation, that 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 76 

 

is, what the text is all about as well as the topics referred to. This 

refers to the social activities in which language plays a part. This 

development agrees with the view of Odebunmi (54) which 

views field of discourse as referring to the ongoing activity, and 

the particular purpose that the use of language is serving within 

the context of that activity. Accordingly, in the study of 

Facebook conversation, several activities and topics that have 

concern with the conversants are discussed. 

The first conversation has the following schematic symbols 

OC ^ BT ^ D ^ Pc ^ F  

Key to symbols:  

OC:  Opening conversation  

BT:  Bringing the topic  

D: Discussion  

Pc:  Pre-closing  

F:  Farewell.  

This conversation is started with Grace asking his friend Eleojo 

whether or not she has picked her interest and nomination forms 

for the departmental election announced to be happening weeks 

ahead.  

Grace brought the topic stage when she opened the conversation. 

At the discussion stage, Grace was given to questioning while 

Eleojo was just answering. After the discussion, Grace talked 

about the attitude of Eleojo’s guy which signals pre-closing 

stage. The farewell stage was observed in Grace’s farewell 

expression” I am hanging out” which shows the social 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 77 

 

relationship or affiliation that exists between the two 

conservants.  

The second conversation has the following schematic structure:  

G ^ OC ^ BT ^ D ^ PC ^ F 

Key to Symbol  

G: Greeting  

OC:  Opening conversation 

BT:  Bringing the Topic  

D:  Discussion  

F:  Farewell  

In the second conversation, the Greeting stage was begun by 

Fave. She said ‘Hi’ that is followed by the first name of her 

friend, Grace which she engaged with some greeting words. In 

this conversation it is clear that the opening conversation did not 

start immediately because opening conversation is usually 

marked by asking of each other’s conditions. Bringing the Topic 

is marked by Grace’s desire to know the department of her 

friend’s guy. In discussion stages, Grace and Eleojo interacted 

on the academic background of Eleojo’s guy. The pre-closing 

and farewell were observed simultaneously.  

The third conversation has the following schematic structure.  

G ^ OC ^ BT ^ D ^ PC ^ F 

Key to Symbol  

G:  Greeting  



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 78 

 

OC:  Opening conversation  

BT:  Bringing Topic.  

D:  Discussion  

PC: Pre-closing  

F:  Farewell  

In the conversation, Greeting stage came first with the exchange 

of pleasantries. The opening conversation came with “hiding” 

after graduation. Bringing Topic stages. Occurred when Fave 

mentioned” graduation which also formed the Discussion. The 

pre-closing occurred when Fave relaxed the discussion and this 

was followed immediately by farewell stage as Fave thanked 

Grace and advising her to stay cool. 

Summary:   

The schematic structure of Facebook conversation observes the 

following: 

Greeting stand for “G” 

Opening conversation stands for “OC”  

Bringing the Topic stands for “BT” 

Discussion stands for “O” 

Pre-closing stands for “PC” 

Farewell stands for “F” 

From the above, it is obvious that Greeting and pre-closing are 

optional while Bringing the Topic and Discussion are recursive. 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 79 

 

There were 14 linguistic features found in the Facebook 

conservation of students who discussed on their forthcoming 

elections. 

Those linguistic features commonly used among students during 

the Facebook conversation were as follows: 

1. Material and relational linguistic features are mostly used 

processes. While material feature addresses the process of 

“doing” and “happening”, Actor (the doer of the action), 

Goal (one to which the process is extended), scope 

(typically occurs in intransitive clauses) relational process 

deals with “being and having”. 

2. Declarative is the mostly used mode. This has to do with 

the nub of the argument, the border of the clause which 

cannot be ignored by the succeeding speaker. 

3. Ideational theme is mostly theme. This means that, in 

Facebook conversation, certain lexical elements are made 

to carry high prominence over and above other features 

and which the speaker at this end wants the listener at that 

end to focus on. 

4. While other tenses are also used in Facebook conversation, 

present tense is most used. 

5. Short sentences are mostly used and lowercase instead of 

uppercase. 

6. Pronouns are most times omitted and punctuations are 

considered in consequential. 

7. Morphological processes such as clipping, contraction, 

abbreviation, alteration of word forms are used in 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 80 

 

Facebook conversation for convenience and easy 

communication. 

8. Facebook users use parenthesis and exclamation marks. 

9. Facebook users also use smileys, emoticons and stickers. 

10. They use repetition of letter or punctuation and 

capitalization for emphasis. 

11. They use Onomatopoeia – this means using a word that 

represents the sound it describes. 

12. Words are usually linked. 

13. Sometimes descriptive language is used. 

14. Sometimes repairs typo or wrong words are usually used. 

Discussion of Findings  

Facebook users adopt purposive role that has to do with the 

focus of the activity in which they are engaged i.e. show what 

their language is all about, what experience they are verbalizing 

and what is ‘going on’ through language. This finding supports 

the view of Odebunmi (54) what asserts to the ongoing activity, 

and the particular purpose that the use of language is serving 

within the context of that activity. 

From the data presented above, it is evident that the observation 

of schematic structure by Facebook users is very strong as most 

of the conversations are made up of constituent stages – 

constituent structure, structure by which the whole, complete 

interaction is made up of parts: a Beginning, Middle and an End. 

The finding is in consonance with the view of Swales (3) which 

asserts that schematic structure is a socially recognised 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 81 

 

recurrent, culturally defined speech event with its own formal 

characteristics, cognitive – move structures and communicative 

purposes.  

Similarly, linguistic features commonly used among Facebook 

users during conversation are found in SFL approach, 

particularly its metafunctions which are ideational metafunction, 

interpersonal metafunction and textual metafunction. 

Conclusion  

Much, if not all, of what is covered by the researcher in this 

work is contextual and falls within the scope of systemic 

functional linguistics ‘SFL’ of definable notion of the domain of 

discourse (Facebook conversation). The work is believed to have 

partly broadened the scope systemic functional linguistic ‘SFL’ 

and the analysis of text linguistics. The social function of 

Facebook conversation discusses something under one or more 

certain topics. The schematic structure of Facebook conversation 

deals with Greeting – Opening Conversation – Bringing the 

Topic – Discussion Pre-Closing and Farewell, while the 

linguistic features commonly used by Facebook users are 

material and relational processes, declarative, ideational theme, 

present tense, lowercase, parenthesis, contraction, similes, 

onomatopoeia, etc. 

The researcher therefore concludes that Facebook conversation 

is a representation of a socio-cultural event embedded in a 

context of situation--- context of situation is the semio-socio-

cultural environment in which the conservation unfolds, and that 

is why it is called “social semiotic”. 

 

 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 82 

 

Works Cited 

Adebola, H. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of 

Turn-taking for Conversation”. Language. 696-735 

(1974). Print. 

Abosode Bisi. “Social Discourse among Students”. Journal of 

Arts. 47-60 (2013). Print. 

Bucholtz, Y and Hall, M. Discussion and Reaction Among 

People: Theory and Method. London & New York: 

Routledge. 2014. Print. 

Chinwe, Ezeifeka. Discourse Analysis: Concepts and 

Approaches. Awka: Patrobas Nigeria Ltd, 2018. Print. 

Coates Jennifer. “Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic 

Account of Gender Differences in Language”. Longman. 

1993. Print. 

Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional 

Linguistics. London: Continuum. 1994. Print. 

Ferdinand De Saussure. “Language and Society. The 

Proceedings of ICphsxvi”. Saarbriucken. 2007. Print. 

Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and 

Method. London & New York: Routledge. 2014. Print. 

Haliday, M.A.K. and Hassan, R. An Introduction to Functional 

Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 1995. Print. 

Kuppuswamy, S. The Impact of Social Networking Websites on 

the Education of Youth. International Journal of Virtual 

Communities and Social Networking. 20-31 (2010). 

Print. 



 AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies Volume 7, No. 1, 2020 

 
 

Page 83 

 

Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook and Me Event of Social. USA. 

2018. Print. 

Odebunmi, Adeje. “Stylistics of Religious. Electronic Media 

Advertisement in Nigeria”. Muenchen: LINCOM GMB. 

2006(1-26). Print. 

Pillar, G. and Patricia, B. Introduction to Analyzing Digital 

Discourse: New Insight and Future Directions. 

Macmillan. 2014. Print. 

Richard Mark. A Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden: 

Blackwell. 2014. Print. 

Statista.com Global Social Networks Ranked by Number of 

Users. http://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-

socailnetworks-ranked-by-number-of-user-/ (Retrieved 

on May 7, 2019, 2014). Print. 

Thulow, J. Social Science and Text Analysis. Cambridge: Polity. 

2011. Print. 

Thurlow, Mroczek. Digital Discourse in the New Media. 

London: Oxford University Press. 2011. Print. 

Wales, K. A Dictionary of Stylistics. London: Longman. 1989. 

Print. 

Yohanna M. Language and Power. London: Longman. 1989. 

Print.  

Yohana Putri. “A Genre Analysis of Facebook Chatting Text”. 

Journal of English Study Program. Udiwus: Semarang. 

2015. Print. 

 


