Mobile Phone Use and Family Communication Quality: A Semantic Investigation of Interpersonal Interaction

This study examined the influence of semantics in mobile phone use on the quality of family interpersonal communication. Specifically, it described the respondents’ demographic profile, examined how respondents characterize the use of semantics in English, Filipino, and Visayan across SMS and face-to-face communication, determined the frequency of interpersonal communication quality with family members in both communication modes, and tested whether semantics significantly affects family communication quality. Guided by sociolinguistic and communication theories, the study employed a descriptive-correlational design involving 120 purposively selected respondents who answered a validated questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression. Results show that respondents are predominantly late adolescents and generally perceive semantics in all three languages as acceptable, with Visayan consistently rated as the most effective in both SMS and face-to-face contexts. Interpersonal communication quality is generally rated from average to above average, with face-to-face interaction yielding higher ratings than SMS. Regression analysis reveals that semantics has a statistically significant but weak positive effect on communication quality. The study concludes that language use contributes to communication effectiveness, but relational and emotional factors remain more influential in family interaction. It is recommended that families and educators promote balanced multilingual communication while strengthening emotional engagement, active listening, and relational closeness to enhance overall communication quality.

Mobile Phone Use; Family Communication Quality; Semantic Investigation; Interpersonal Interaction; Multilingual Communication

1. Androutsopoulos, J. (2021). Multilingualism, digital communication, and language practices in social media. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Armingol, E., Officer, A., Harismendy, O., & Lewis, N. E. (2021). Deciphering cell-cell interactions and communication from gene expression. Nature Reviews Genetics, 22(2), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00292-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bautista, M. L. S. (2004). Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024960 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cabalquinto, E. C. (2021). “We’re not only here but we’re there in spirit”: Asymmetrical mobile intimacy and the transnational Filipino family. Media International Australia, 179(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20985962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Caparas, P., & Gustilo, L. (2017). Communicative aspects of multilingual code-switching in computer-mediated communication. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: A student guide. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54847-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Koerner, A. F., & Schrodt, P. (2014). An introduction to the special issue on family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 14(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.857328 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lerner, R. M. (Ed.). (2018). Handbook of adolescent psychology (4th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Liu, S., Li, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Problematic smartphone use and communication in families with adolescents. Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12822 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. McNallie, J., & Gettings, P. E. (2023). Exploring family communication patterns and interpersonal technologies in United States-based grandparent-grandchild relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 23(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2023.2205842 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Merkaš, M., Bodrožić Selak, M., & Žulec Ivanković, T. (2024). Digital communication technologies and family relationship quality: A systematic review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024, Article 8894532. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8894532 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Muin, F. R. (2023). The role of family interpersonal communication in preserving local languages. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 11(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v11i1.3783 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Palviainen, Å., & Kędra, J. (2020). What’s in the family app? Making sense of digitally mediated communication within multilingual families. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 1(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmtp.15363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Peebles, A., & Chen, Y. A. (2024). Parental Internet practices in the family system: Restrictive mediation, problematic Internet use, and adolescents’ age-related variations in perceptions of parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Family Communication, 24(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231221581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pew Research Center. (2024). Teens, social media and technology 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Rahman, N. A. A., & Alavi, K. (2023). Pattern of interpersonal communication between parents and adolescence among the B40 family. EDUCATUM Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejoss.vol9.1.1.2023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. S. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75(3), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750802256318 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Smolicz, J. J., & Nical, I. (1997). Exporting the European idea of a national language: Some educational implications of the use of English and indigenous languages in the Philippines. International Review of Education, 43(5–6), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003098421350 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescence (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Steinberg, L. (2018). Identity development and adolescence. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (4th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). Teen talk: The language of adolescents. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583800 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (Eds.). (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.001.0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. UNESCO. (2021). The importance of multilingual education and mother tongue-based learning. https://www.unesco.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. UNESCO. (2022). Global report on culture for sustainable development. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. UNESCO. (2025). Languages matter: Silver Jubilee celebration of International Mother Language Day. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/languages-matter-silver-jubilee-international-mother-language-day-2025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Uy-Tioco, C. S., & Cabañes, J. V. A. (2021). Glocal intimacies and the contradictions of mobile media access in the Philippines. Media International Australia, 179(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20985962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Walther, J. B. (2017). Computer-mediated communication. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, S. R. Wilson, J. P. Dillard, J. Caughlin, & D. Solomon (Eds.), The International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540197.wbeic219 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Wu, N., & Mustafa, S. E. (2023). Effects of social media use on family relationship quality: A systematic review. Forum Komunikasi, 19(1), 195–225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]