SMS and CMC are an essential part of our society. So, webspeak/netspeak has a huge influence on our culture as is evident in the frequency of usage and proliferation of the practice. In my personal experience it is very common for people to use webspeak/netspeak in a face to face conversation. I’ve heard people say “smh–shaking my head” and “lol – laughing out loud” in a face to face conversation. Webspeak/netspeak is such a huge part of our daily lives that we often find ourselves falling into this way of relaying messages and neglecting to use the more traditional form of communication. However, I don’t agree that a new hybrid form of English is emerging from text messaging and instant messaging that will eventually “take over” our traditional written format. I agree with Baron that “The goal of an IM conversation is to get your message across…not produce an entry for an essay contest”. I think that people text and IM the way they talk but know that when it’s time to get serious and type a paper for school or an email in a business setting, they step up to the plate and use the traditional written language respecting its rules. I think the language of text/IM is definitely more like talking than writing. Writing is formal, but text and IM are informal just like the majority of talking we do. For the most part, we communicate with our friends and family in a relaxed environment and they are usually the same people we text/IM. In text and IM, we type just as we would talk. There are numerous occasions where someone I know has typed something to me in text or IM and I have responded, “I can hear exactly how you said that”.
5 thoughts on “Blog 4: Webspeak/Netspeak”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you do things continually for so long it becomes a habit. Think back before you started using lingo or abbreviations. How long did it take you before you started using them due to a habit. We use technology so frequent now that it has become part of our daily life so what make this language any different? The text/IM language was used to make things faster and since everything is at such a fast pace now this language fits riught in.
I completely agree with you (and the authors of our readings) that a new language will NOT take over our traditonal written and spoken language. As we get older, I think many of us know how to compartmentalize the way we communicate, much of which depends on the channel. When I’m texting, I might use abbreviations and short sentences and informal dialogue, but that’s because I know who I’m talking to and for what purpose. When I’m emailing at work or writing a paper class, I know that I need to write more academically. I think as we settle in to new communication and get used to what’s going to stick around (like texting), we do a better job of understanding how to communicate through each unique channel.
I think the goal of text is to hear someone’s “voice”. The “netspeak” in many ways acts as a crutch to help us hear that voice. Since we are using text in place of a phone call or face to face conversation, we use these abbreviations to cut down on the length it takes us to send the message so the speed more closely mimics our speech pattern.
I agree, it does become a habit if you continuously do something. It is hard to come out of those habits, but I do think that it will not take over. As much as a habit, there is always proofreading. So it does not always have to be a negative.
Although I have heard terms such as “LOL” and “CYL”, I must say I have never heard people say abbreviations in face-to-face conversations. That is a very concerning fact, since lots of people are afraid that Baron’s “mutated version” of English is replacing regular English. Today’s generation is being exposed to language and text abbreviations that my generation would never have thought possible. I agree that texting people can be as casual as talking to them. However, some people can easily use this comfort in a horrid way, such as when they want to break up with someone. Not delivering this type of news face-to-face can be found by some as cowardly.