From what can be surmised from the readings, webspeak is having a mostly negative influence on our culture. While the languages of text and IM may allow people to communicate with people far from their respective locations, they lack the personal meaning and sincerity that comes with face-to-face interactions. Texting a person can appear to be more like writing someone rather than actually talking to them. Sometimes, you really have to know the person on the other side of the conversation for the message to possess any actual value. Only then will it seem like you are really speaking with someone.
According to Baron’s findings, there are not enough similarities to say that posting an IM is not the same as talking to someone, saying “IM was far more pragmatic”. He also found that a new form of English is emerging for IM and text messaging. Even though I have limited experience with using or reading that particular style of texting, I do believe that it is becoming more common in today’s society. More and more people are using it and, as a result, there have even been new rules made on official writing tests that prohibit the use of text lingo. With the increasing frequency of its use, however, this rule may not last much longer.
From what can be found in Thurlow’s readings, texting is an example of human “communication imperative.” This basically states that people use texting so much in today’s world, that it has become a daily necessity for many individuals. However, Thurlow also said that texting was an “exaggerated and prejudicial rhetoric.” This statement gave the impression that texting is getting too much attention in our current culture. Like several other people, Thurlow appears to have mixed feelings about the notion of texting.
I completely agree that texting, for many, has become an example of a human “communication imperative”. I don’t think a lot of people even realize how essential texting has become in their lives. After a while, it just comes natural. As you mentioned, Thurlow has mixed feelings about the consequences of texting. As with everything, there is good and bad. The good is the efficient exchange of information, our ability to manage relationships, and to be available whenever we want to be. The bad is our dependency on texting. Sometimes we over-indulge and forget to take breaks, things we all need. As for the language, Thurlow points out that it’s not ruining the English language as some would have you believe.
I agree with you about the pros and cons of texting. I think things have been a little overblown with people saying that texting is ruining young people’s ability to communicate. The truth is that teenagers are usually the earliest adopters of technology, and they don’t have the life experiences to pick up that kind of habit with any moderation. Looking at them as the norm of users may giving us the wrong picture. While I do think texting is here to stay, I think many of them will grow out of using it to such a heavy extreme. After all, at age 13 I had three hours to spend on the phone every night, not so much anymore.
I agree with your statement “you really have to know the person on the other side of the conversation for the message to possess any actual value.” Mainly because it is true. When emailing someone new I often find myself over explaining simply because I am unsure about the person the on the other side of the computer. Then once they respond and it is relaxed I am more at ease.
I wouldn’t completely say it is a negative impact on our culture, but we as individuals should know when and where to use webspeak and how to use it. You really have to learn how to separate the two and use when appropriate. It all depends on the person not the culture in my opinion.