Theories on how technology impacts language.
This task required us to read an article by david Crystal and re-watch the Ted talk by John McWorther, summarize their theory of how technology affects language and conclusively identify their differences and similarities.
Texting
David's theory on how technology impacts the english language is mainly based on text messaging. The article commences by elaborating on how texting has become a "modern phenomenon", immediately eliminating a laregly negative view on the aspects on texting. It is mentioned how text messaging was never meant to be used in the way we do nowadays, but in fact was provided for commercial information or voice mail messages. Fastforwarding to now, in the UK a staggering 4 billion text messages are being sent per month.
Two poems are mentioned in this article, in which David has provided comments and analyzation as well as opinion. One poem will be mentioned.
poem #1 "Txt Commndmnts"
1 U shall luv ur mobil fone with all ur hart
2 U & ur fone shall neva b apart
3 U shall nt lust aftr ur neibrs fone nor thiev
4 U shall b prepard @ all tims 2 tXt & 2 recv
5 U shall use LOL & othr acronyms in convrsatns
6 U shall be zappy with ur ast*r*sks & ex!amtns
7 U shall abbrevi8 & rite words lik theyr said
8 U shall nt speak to sum1 face2face if u cn msg em insted
9 U shall nt shout with capitls XEPT IN DIRE EMERGNCY +
10 U shall nt consult a ninglish dictnry
David announces that due to the lingual options on the mobile phone being so constricted, "text speaking" as he calls it, has given rise to one of the most idiosyncretic varities in the history of language. A key term in this article would be " rebus abbreviation"which simply means a puzzle you have to unravel, by using pictures and abbreviations in order to identify a word. David uses that to explain those words used in the poem such as " 2 tXt & 2 recv" or "abbrevi8" and "b4".
He also mentions that such forms of communication are not focused on merely texting ; they appear within many other electronical uses of communication such as e-mails, chatgroups and blogs. This reflects on the influence and power the language of text messaging has inflicted on the people.
Despite many proclaiming the use of rebus abbreviation originating from todays youth, David insists that the very idea of rebus is a tradition that has been passed over generations, dating all the way back to the Victorians having used them to play games. As well as childrens annuals containing puzzles with them. So really, Text speaking is just a slightly different version of those things.
David then inspects something that seems to be even more spectacular than using images to represent words. The mere ability to shorten words into commonly known abbreviations because of a restricition to a 160 characters, such as "LOL" (laughing out loud) or " BTDT" (Been there, done that) fascinates him. The fact that people adapted to their financial as well as technological limits so swiftly does show a lot.
He points out how people appear to have realised that skipping a vowel is more beneficial than skipping consonants as well as leaving out puncutation and replacing it in words. Often one can identify an accent by looking at which consonants are being skipped or familiar contexts that relate directly to an accent or a dialect. He also brings attention to the reason of shortening entire sentences to a single word, such as a quicker connection to time and energy as well as a smaller phone bill. However after discovering over 500 rebus abbreviations he announced that only a small number of those would actually be commonly used, defeating the stereotype of the new generation dumbing down language. Though at times a regular abbreviation can have a different meaning to other individuals which could cause fatal consequences in reference to who you're texting.
To David, text speaking is one of the most interesting things to have evolved around time. He says that it is a new genre, an entirely new way for most of us to communicate, which many take for normal everyday things but can have a whole other meaning to linguists, like David.
He states that text speak will definitely not affect our language completely, nevertheless the youth would occasionally use it to sound "cool", and it'd be found in school essays sometimes. The latter could be eradicated by the basic concepts of grammar which schools teach anyway. He sets forth the use of text speaking being a mere substitute for more compressed writing and time frames that people mostly master to divide from their general speech adressed at their regular audiences.
Txtng is killing language. JK!!!
John has a much more commical way of approaching the issue of texting, nevertheless serious undertones are kept consistent to prove his point. He also focuses more on speech and thoughts and how those connect to the idea of texting.
The key concept of his connection of the new generation and texting is that "Speech is much more loser, much more telegraphic much less reflective." As in the way we speak doesn't necessarily reflect the way we'd write an assignment , we dont feel the need to follow any grammatical rules consistently and we dont really reflect on our speech either. And were does our speech come from? Our thoughts. We dont formulate our thoughts considering all the grammatical rules, punctutation and spelling or the best word to use for something , in fact we use our basic knowldege for understandable sentences and then immediately transport them into our texting appliances, without wasting time to elaborate and analyze, which could make us lose our train of thought.
John points out that in the past, speech is what came first and was one of the only ways people would communicate, without writing for a long period of time. He states that if humanity had existed for 24 hours, then writing would've come in at around 11:07 pm, as an artifice ; just a cunning way to replace speech but in no way to fully represent it. He gives writing some credit by reminding his audience that it is a much more effective way to reflect on things we have to say, ponder on them and have them there permanently.
There's beautiful articulated speech but apparently no one really talks like that , mostly because we dont think that way and it is highly unusual as well as its lack of individuality.
He names the way we talk "casual speech". He describes it as a much loser, unmonitored way to speak. He then moves on to phones and how the sense of something in your pocket exchanging messages with someone is almost like actually talking to that person and having to keep up with what they're saying, vice versa. Just like real speech , you dont take time to look for a more educated way to say something or think about capital letters, you simply say whats in your head. The same goes for texting, one formulates a thought and immediately turns it into a few words that are abbreviated in order to reply quickly and effectively. People who text usually get straight to the point. He calls texting "fingered speech". It now enables us to write the way we talk and think.
Commonly used abbreviations such as "LOL" are used out of context now, being given a new purpose. They're now being used in a very distincitve way , as a marker of empathy and of acommodation. That doesnt mean there's something wrong in our texting techniques, and using "slash" to change a topic you dont feel like discussing instead of going through the whole subtle process of slithering out of something as nicely as possible.
The way John defines texting to be these days is an entirely new way of writing that the youth has developed over a short time period. And in addition to that, they mostly fully master the regular writing skills which means they have the ability to use two ways to communicate. As known, being bilingual has its benefits, but being bidialectal is just as effective. Conclusively texting and regular communication is proof of our youth being able to balance out two uses which expands their horizon of understanding in terms of languages and personalities.
Similarities:
Both John and David are very supportive of the use of texting of our youth and community and are similarly convinced that the users are able to juggle the two fairly different ways of communication perfectly and responsibly. They both came up with convincing theories and facts to back up their opinions that conclusively were the same. Both of them stressed that our youth isnt dumbed down or unable to exceed in any other academic subjects or general conversations, in fact they both agree that their skill of speech is enhanced by having two ways to express themselves.
Differences:
David focuses much more on certain grammatical rules such as the placement and deduction of vowels, consonants and punctuation and how that reflects on the texter, not really engaging in their thought processes or the difference in speech. His point of the article is more directed on exactly what texting consists of, how, when and where its used, and not what kind of effect that has as a whole or the actual reason of it, as can be seen on his analyzation on the poems given.
Where as John's speech seems much more simple , he has a wider perspective and discovers connections amongst thoughts, speech and texting that date back into the 1600ds and up to this point. He really tries to get the point across of how texting isnt wrong in any way, how it is simply a different new way of communicating that relates directly to your thoughts. How we now have the opportunity to text our exact thoughts in a short space of time. Other worldly concerns of the young people of today losing their elegance and articulation of speech is swept away with some forward answers and facts to back up his argument, which is much more fierce and focused. Also the fact that he chose to be filmed and have an audience further supports his belief in his argument and his want to spread it as these days people are more likely to watch a video than read a long bland article.
No comments:
Post a Comment