Internet Chat and the Devolution of Language
Jim O'Neill
ICQ, etc.) and its effects on written language. Being a word lover myself,
I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet
learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into
abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general
use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual
expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.
I'm aware of linguists' arguments that language evolves no matter
what, and that the development of slang and the loss of certain
rules like the "John and I (vs. me) went to the store" rule are perfectly
legitimate and often make more sense than "standard" usage --
and for the most part I agree.... But when a generation is growing
up whose normal mode of written expression is:
"omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was
like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted
to scream!"
...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.
I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it
inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?
Thanks,
Jim
Arcadian Rises
>I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it
>inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?
Most of the above, I believe.
That reminds me of the joke about the old Sanskrit message found on a wall that
read something like "Our new generation has no moral values."
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play,
and that seems to be what's going on in your example. Forms can
change, and temporary ones develop, and those changes don't seem
harmful to language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be
harmful?
I wonder if this kind of complaint happens because the complainer has
a big investment in a certain kind of language use, and they feel it's
devalued by lots of people going in other directions. Has it ever been
shown that a language evolved to its permanent detriment ? I mean in
the sense of impairing communication, not by some conservative
esthetic standard.
--
john
Arcadian Rises
>Has it ever been
>shown that a language evolved to its permanent detriment ? I mean in
>the sense of impairing communication, not by some conservative
>esthetic standard.
The very political correct vocabulary is an epitome of impaired communication.
If I tell you that "she has a special child", do you understand what I mean, or
you need more context?
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
It needs more context, for sure. But even politically correct
vocabulary is serving the purposes of its users. The defect lies in
their overly scrupulous intentions, more than in language.
--
john
Dr. Jai Maharaj
John O'Flaherty <quia...@yahoo.com> posted:
*---===== English is Munglish =====---*
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Jim O'Neill
>
> People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play,
> and that seems to be what's going on in your example. Forms can
> change, and temporary ones develop, and those changes don't seem
> harmful to language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be
> harmful?
Regardless of language forms being harmful or not (and I agree with
you in spirit), my example touches on another trend that I'm just as
concerned with: Loss of personality or individuality.
In my opinion, the less you type (say, in an email, chat room, or forum)
to someone else, the less of your personality comes through to that
person. While smileys and abbreviations can be apt and sometimes
expressive enough, I still think that if what you type is close to what
you would say out loud, you express yourself better.
Internet abbreviations, shorthand and emoticons are so homogeneous
that the writing of people who rely too much on them turns into a kind of
inscrutable code that doesn't represent them very well as people.
At least, those are my thoughts. Dissent or discussion is welcome.
Jim
Peter Moylan
>"omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was
>like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted
>to scream!"
>
>...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.
>
>I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it
>inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?
It's a way of excluding outsiders. I had to read the above very
slowly and carefully before figuring out what it meant. Presumably
the people who write this way can read it just as fluently as we
read normal English.
In all likelihood the author of this example is bilingual, and
writes just like us when the occasion demands.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Richard R. Hershberger
My off-the-cuff reaction is that the people who write messages such as
the example you gave in your original post are not trying to show
their individuality. They are, I suspect, at an age when strict
conformity to the norms of their social group are the priority. Most
people grow out of that, and the ones that don't have problems far
beyond their use of language.
Richard R. Hershberger
R J Valentine
} Jim O'Neill <JamO...@hotmail.com> wrote:
}
}>"omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was
}>like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted
}>to scream!"
}>
}>...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.
}>
}>I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it
}>inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?
}
} It's a way of excluding outsiders. I had to read the above very
} slowly and carefully before figuring out what it meant.
How so? What is there in the example that seems meant to exclude
outsiders. It seems to me to be a way to type fast. The context is real
time written conversation, not (for instance) newsgroup postings or
peer-reviewed journal articles.
} Presumably
} the people who write this way can read it just as fluently as we
} read normal English.
We? Now you've gone and wook up Areff.
} In all likelihood the author of this example is bilingual, and
} writes just like us when the occasion demands.
Us?
Anyhow, I doubt it. The example is kid talk, typed fast. If you want to
keep up, you can't pay much attention to what the other person is saying,
and not much more to what you're saying. Screen time waits for no man.
The author might hope eventually to write like YJ.
It's not like the concept is new or anything. Back in the sixties we
[sic] had a similar thing going in Teletype communications, where for
practical purposes the fastest typer got his way. Being the ranking
controller at the biggest station didn't hurt, mind you. But being the
fastest typer snipped through a lot of the red tape.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Internet abbreviations, shorthand and emoticons are so homogeneous
> that the writing of people who rely too much on them turns into a kind of
> inscrutable code that doesn't represent them very well as people.
Maybe it represents them exactly - you are what you type?
John Dean
Like the Proto-Indo-European fragment that said 'language is going to hell
in a handbasket'
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Steve Zadarnowski
>I'm researching a project on real-time written communication (AIM,
>ICQ, etc.) and its effects on written language. Being a word lover myself,
>I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet
>learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into
>abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general
>use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual
>expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.
[...]
>...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.
I'm inclined to agree, but this isn't limited to the internet.
SMS messaging is much the same. I see it as temporary. To some
degree this was the case in the early telegram/telex days when
messages were compact because of cost.
My experience is that people get sick of it and revert back to
a more normal mode of communication, ie, using whole words! :-)
I don't think it's an epidemic, but fingers crossed that the
Oxford dictionary doesn't include every kind of lame abbreviation
used by the internet/sms messaging junkies.
I used to be guilty of the same thing, but back in the early
1980's using chat on university systems. It didn't last long
as I started to feel like a right prat after a few weeks and
chucked it in.
So it's not new. Let us pray...
S
--
Remove the Zees to Reply...
Steve Zadarnowski
Bullshit...
Simon R. Hughes
QED?
--
Simon R. Hughes
Don Phillipson
>
> >Being a word lover myself,
> >I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet
> >learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into
> >abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general
> >use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual
> >expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.
1. Seeking clarity, radio-telegraph users have
for 60 years used a special pronunciation e.g.
NINER for integer 9. This did not degrade the language.
2. Seeking brevity, police radio users use jargon
like 10-4, some of which passes into general speech:
but seems not yet to have degraded the language.
3. Seeking economy, newspapermen for decades
wrote intra-office "telegraphese." Same (non-)result.
4. We may have no reason to suppose that either
newsgroup habits or TXT MSGing will have any
major effect on the norms of either speech or
literary writing.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
R H Draney
>
>1. Seeking clarity, radio-telegraph users have
>for 60 years used a special pronunciation e.g.
>NINER for integer 9. This did not degrade the language.
>
>2. Seeking brevity, police radio users use jargon
>like 10-4, some of which passes into general speech:
>but seems not yet to have degraded the language.
Roger that....
(Pause now while the .uk and .au readers have a nice laugh...the phrase appeared
in yesterday's "Doonesbury" as a casual statement of agreement)....r
Mark Browne
<nos...@nospam.trytel.com> writes
>> JamO...@hotmail.com (Jim O'Neill) wrote:
>>
>> >Being a word lover myself,
>> >I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet
>> >learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into
>> >abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general
>> >use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual
>> >expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.
>
>1. Seeking clarity, radio-telegraph users have
>for 60 years used a special pronunciation e.g.
>NINER for integer 9. This did not degrade the language.
>
>2. Seeking brevity, police radio users use jargon
>like 10-4, some of which passes into general speech:
>but seems not yet to have degraded the language.
>
>3. Seeking economy, newspapermen for decades
>wrote intra-office "telegraphese." Same (non-)result.
These I would agree with, but...
>4. We may have no reason to suppose that either
>newsgroup habits or TXT MSGing will have any
>major effect on the norms of either speech or
>literary writing.
The difference here is that it is not a restricted group using the
shorthand, but a general part of the population. It may be that this
will make it have a greater coverage and longevity.
--
Mark Browne
If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the
"From" address will be rejected
Chris Malcolm
Exactly. Newsgroup or email English is a particular form with its own
particular problems of ambiguity and miscommunication, jargon,
etc.. Where did this idea that there is only one form of English come
from? As soon as you throw away that silly idea, there ceases to be a
problem -- learning a new kind of English doesn't degrade another kind
of English, even if some of the new linguistic inventions pass across.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
David Berkeley
I think you are absolutely right here. It's a compelling means of
declaring yourself part of the culture of the group. My own
19-year-old (when he was still at home) used to use this approach all
the time. There were some well-known informal protocols (some of which
are duplicated in these newsgroups) covering the use of smileys (how
many, which type and when) which abbreviations to use in certain
registers and contexts and one's ability to do this controlled who
interacted with you and in what way. The person who deploys these
appropriately gets rewarded with positive responses and those who
don't ...
In a broader sense it's not that different from what we do here. If
someone makes an obvious faux-pas, someone will "oy!" them (if they
don't get in first and "oy!" themself.)
Away from spoken and written language people use all sorts of tactics
to establish culture or negotiate acceptance -- posture, clothing,
gifts etc ...
I think IM-speak is just another manifestation of that activity.
Berko