I think that webspeak/netspeak has a major impact on our culture. Technology is a major part of our daily lives and many people would be lost without them devices.  Linguistic language, emoticon and abbreviations have all become part of our daily conversations. I can recall hundreds of times speaking with someone face to face and the say LOL or OMG. What is considered norm language within webspeak/netspeak is now become an everyday language. I have also received emails where different lingo and abbreviations are being use. I believe because people text/IM so much that they began to verbally communicate in the same manner. Thurlow says that “’young people write it as if they saying it’” (16).

Society is so program with time that everything is done in a hurry. We use lingo, abbreviation etc. because the conversations are at a fast pace and we are press for time or occupied with other things. During face to face conversation we have so many things that we have to do that we have to limit the time that we spend communicating with one another and in order to do that we have to use language that we have developed online to communicate quicker.

I agree with Baron’s findings that a new hybrid form of English is emerging.  This language is developing in a new form of language just as Ebonics did. CMC technology has allowed us to communicate with each other without make proper sentences or worrying about subject verb agreement. It has made it easier to communicate. On my job we are informed that we have to communicate using an eighth grade level in order to ensure that everything is understood.  Is this because most CMC does not require an education and more people are webspeak/netspeak language? Will employer’s state accepting this language as appropriate? Will the world totally convert to this language since it is used so often?

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”.

Webspeak/Netspeak is its own culture. American’s are more suseptible to the short hand or “code” talk as identified in the readings because we are more vulnerable to the technologies. The primary tool that is sucking us into this new culture is our cell phones. From the begining of IM on AOL Instant messanger, the spread of shor text or netspeak has moved rapidly through our society.

The points that were interesting to me and that I beleive influence our American culture revolve around the notes about speech versus writing. The overall acceptability of “slang” abbreviations and untraditional grammer are overlooked in today’s society. The primary audience is teenagers that are raised in the technology age where the focus is quick, short, and not gramatically proper.

I must admit english is not my strongest subject. However, when I was a teen we had slang, but not breivity as the teenagers of today have and use. I do aggre with Baron’s findings as noted above we have incorportate IM/Text languae into our conversations in person, online, television, even in music.

Reading these articles brought me immediately back to high school, when my friends and I would literally schedule times to meet on AIM. Never mind picking up the phone and having an actual conversation- we lived for these moments of typing out our inside jokes and “hanging out” with each other while we did homework, searched Google, and even did chores.

I really think that webspeak/netspeak is having a large amount of influence on our culture. While I haven’t gotten on an instant messaging application or site in several years, I know several high school students who love them, and even things like FaceTime on the iPad/iPhone are constantly used as communication tools. As Thurlow says, youth are often represented as “exotic” and different, and they have so much technology at their disposal (13). This new frontier of communication allows them to have options and choices about how they relay information and bond with their friends. Being able to text or message something gives people a boldness that they couldn’t have in person (Thurlow writes that according to Brown’s study, 52% of participants sent something via text that they wouldn’t say face to face) (11). These new forms of communication are having a huge effect on our culture.

I agree with Baron when she says that these new forms are creating a hybrid version of English. Because people are using texting and internet messaging for a lot of their communication, they are reverting to abbreviations, shortcuts, abruptly short messages, and other ways to get the point across more quickly. Baron also writes that instant messages are often published without proofreading or taking the time to think over words (48). This is one of the many ways these communication tools are closer to speech than to writing. Baron says that instant messages are often broken up into several lines, like pauses we make in speech (49). She also says that (according to Herring) men are often crude, and women often apologize on instant messaging, which to me are things that happen often in dialogue, but not so much in emails, where people think over their words (52-53). Instant messages were also found to average at 5.6 words, which is more like an informal conversation and less like written works. Thurlow says that “young people ‘write it as if saying it,'” which means that these tools are used for small talk and for bonding purposes (16).

Thurlow mentions “how the human need for social intercourse – a kind of ‘communication imperative’ – bends and ultimately co-opts technology to suit its own ends, regardless of any commercial or military ambition for the technology.” As we discussed in the early chapters of Baym, the technology doesn’t control us as much as we adapt its capabilities to suit our needs. In so doing, our streams of consciousness evolve, sometimes without us even realizing it. But again, we brought on that change. Thurlow makes the argument that, despite this evolution, the young generation is not reinventing language. Rather, this generation is attracted to new technology because of the desire for “mobility, discretion, intimacy and, indeed, fun.” Our use of SMS language is, as Thurlow said, “unremarkable”.

I found it interesting when the Thurlow article mentioned that adults criticize text messaging as a form of code that is ruining the English language and the ability to properly socialize. Yet older generations focus all their attention on how the young generation does things differently than they did. They make little effort to understand the root cause behind the activity of text messaging and how it might relate in many ways to their motivations growing up.

Thurlow pointed out that text messaging language is not as uncommon and deviant from the standard English language as some might think. For example, his study found that abbreviations account for less than 20% of overall message content. Baron’s 2008 study on Instant Messaging substantiated this as well. This dispels the myth that those texting speak in code. Thurlow’s study also found the majority of messages were relational in nature vs. informational. I was a little surprised at this. I thought it might be a mix closer to 50/50. But as I looked at some of my recent text messages, his findings held true.

Baron’s 2008 study had many similar findings to that of Thurlow’s research. For instance, individual linguistic CMC transmissions more closely resembled informal speech patterns than they did tradition written formats. Also, acronyms were not nearly as common as most people believe. IMHO (In my honest opinion ;-), even when abbreviations are used via instant or text messages, it’s because our information exchanges via these media are intended to be fast, much like speech, and it’s quicker in some cases to use acronyms. Yet, at the same time, Baron notes that instant messages are not analogous to speech. We don’t use nearly the amount of contractions in SMS as we think we do and as we do with oral speech. And her study showed that there weren’t many grammatical errors exhibited in discourse transactions via IM. Despite the rapidity of this medium, we still ensure that what we type is correct, much like we do with things we write formally.

Baron’s 2010 study took more of an in-depth look at gender differences via the use of IM discourse. She found that male IMs more closely resembled speech while female IMs are more similar to written language. It will be interesting to see if future research can determine whether or not the same gender qualities are visible in speech discourse.

The Jones and Schieffelin findings further demonstrate the idea that CMC is not ruining language.We’re simply adapting the way we use language to fit our needs, keeping in mind the technical affordances and limitations of new media.

Its become a popular myth that the English language is dying a slow death at the hands of CMC and the “Net generation”, as Thurlow calls them (2003). Before you cry out that grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary are the innocent victims of a merciless digital villain, I encourage you to read a little Shakespeare. Too much trouble you say? Hard to get through such flowery, overly structured language to really get into the story? There is a reason that nearly every high school student in America has to read Julius Caesar or Macbeth. Not only are the stories great, but its good as students to see how our language has changed, becoming more casual over time. So who has been selling us this myth that our language is under threat? According to Thurlow (2003), “it is not only lay people and journalists who are responsible for this kind of exaggerated and often prejudicial rhetoric” but academics as well (p.3).

This week, much of our readings focused on the study of instant messaging chats. One of the key messages found in our readings is that it is important to view these logs as “conversational”. When studied, these messages act more as a back and worth one would have in person. Despite being exchanged in the form of writing, these interactions did not really resemble the formal writing that is taught in school. The SMS message seems to be something of the next generation of instant messaging. With mobile technology bringing a handheld device that can do much of what our previous desktops (at the height of instant messaging, late 1990s and early 2000s) could do, SMS has become the popular way of exchanging messages that can be both synchronous and asynchronous depending on the attention of the parties involved.

Baron (2008) theorizes that a new form of English is emerging as a result of the adoption of instant messaging and text messaging, and I agree. I can see that the conversational dialogue style that comprises the average CMC exchange is more “speech than writing”, but I think this is an organic change. To say that there is a “new English” makes it seem like something radical has occurred, and I don’t see it that way. CMC technology has allowed us to communicate with each other using the written word in a more immediate way than previous technologies have provided, and we are using this technology in our everyday conversations with friends, family, and coworkers/peers. It seems natural to me that these types of quick, largely casual exchanges would more resemble our speech than our writing. In this way, it seems a more natural progression of change as a consequence of technology, and it seems to follow the natural change of our language becoming less formal over time, per my Shakespeare example.

Gender cropped up again as Baron (2010) look over instant messages exchanged between males and males, and females and females and looked at three key indicators: general discourse scaffolding, utterance breaks, and lexical issues.  While male to male interactions more closely resembled their speech patterns, women were more structured with their interactions more closely resembling their writing patterns. With gender differences once again being identified within the scholarly literature, I would like to see a study where professionals try to identify the gender of the sender by only reading their exchanges. This would make a stronger case for the such defined behaviors.

In Jones and Schieffelin (2009), the AT&T commercial and subsequent reactions were explored as a means of studying the power of humor, language, and forms of “text talk” that have emerged out of CMC. The authors concluded by reviewing the reactions on YouTube that textalk is not a signal of the end of language integrity, but as a form of verbal wordplay. In this way, humor is used to poke fun at both those who didn’t understand text talk, and those who had overly adopted it.

The globalization process has left an indelible mark on almost every aspect of human activity, language included which in turns, a rise the need for a fast and effective means of communication that would allow for virtually instant interaction among people anywhere in the world. The internet is one ideally meets this demand and has changed our lives. It also greatly affected the language used on this new medium. The English language, which is the most widely used language on the Internet, is undergoing considerable changes, adapting and adjusting to the specific requirements of this new type of communication. Special names have been given for the new type of linguistic medium such as Gobespeak, Netlish or Netspeak, Weblish, Syperspeak, and Webspeak.

In general, there are two attitudes toward Netspeak, Some see it as a threat to the norm, a corruptive influence on standard language, and others see it as a possibility for language innovations and new ways of expressiveness. In either case, the fact remains that it cannot be ignored because it is here to stay. Netspeak serves as a tool of information exchange and socio-emotional expression as well as to build social constructions. The kind of English that is an integral part of this communication is not any specific variety of English such as British, American or Australian, but rather a kind of international, global English because it is used not only for communication, but also as a social marker indicating the users’ belonging to a particular online community. Therefore, yes!I do agree with Baron’s findings that a new hybrid form of English is emerging from IM and text messaging.

For most people, talking is easier than writing and more convenience because writing require more detail and clarity to get a feedback. The language of text/IM is not more like talking than writing; instead, it might be more challenging than writing an essay or email. It also depends to whom you are writing this text and how close is the relationship. Especially, if one of the text senders or both of them has a second language, it can be more challenging and that’s because some abbreviations and images has different meanings in different cultures; therefore, we should be careful when sending a text/IM message globally.

I think that  webspeak/net speak has a very large impact on our culture. We are living in the age of technology; nearly everything can be accessed via mobile phone. Even this blog that i am currently typing is being typed from a Droid phone. This easy access while convenient is often damaging, often spoiling us, subconsciously convincing us that we need constant contact. To be unreachable is to be dead, out of the loop, unacceptable. With technology there is often a race to be the fastest and to have the latest, which has created a code that Barron and other sophisticates have deemed CMC.

I often find myself tempted to short hand in regular communication. Where I would normally articulate, professional emails, papers, I often have to double check and reread my work because of my habit of shorthanding. When shorthand becomes your most often way of communicating of course it would take precedence over the traditional way of communicating. The most tempting thing abou the new language of text/IM is that it is a lot like talking. Its the most relatable form of language. Like I said previously, if text lingo is the most frequent form of communication/language it automatically takes priority as the go to language. It eliminates the gap between the brain and the hands, the conscious and unconscious speech. Much how we code switch from slang to standard english when the situation deems neccessary.

I’ve never enjoyed talking on the phone. It’s always felt a little awkward for me. Perhaps it’s because I simply prefer to see the person I’m speaking with, or perhaps it’s because I migrated to the Internet at an early age, adopting email and MySpace as my primary means of exchanging correspondence. But, it’s not just that I feel awkward, I sound awkward. For some reason, when I pick up the phone to receive or make a call, my voice inevitably climbs to abnormally high octaves. I’m usually able to make a conscious decision to lower my voice before making a call. So, if I don’t think about it beforehand, you might be a bit puzzled to hear the voice of a pubescent boy answering my phone. You know, though, that’s just the way it is; there’s something about the media we use to communicate that change the way we might normally communicate face t0 face.

When it comes to communicating via Internet means, such as Facebook or Twitter, many of us face other such communication conundrums. When is it appropriate to use emoticons, or to omit them? Oftentimes, while emoticons and acronyms were created to ease the process of online communication, they create a whole new set of challenges for us to overcome. A man might feel that the use of emoticons makes him appear effeminate and overly-sensitive, or a woman might fear that smiley face will make her co-worker think she’s flirting with him. Also, many non-natives of the digital realm will find themselves struggling to make sense of acronyms, as portrayed humorously by Phil’s character from the show Modern Family, when he explains to viewers that he’s a cool dad who knows all the hip text lingo, citing, “WTF: Why The Face…” However, regardless of age, learning to converse in this new form of language is a challenge all of us, at some level, must conquer. Let’s just think about this: the English language has taken thousands of years to evolve into what it is today, and it is totally different from what it was in the days of Shakespeare, just a short few hundred years ago. Today, we must struggle to keep up with a language which is now evolving much faster with the introduction of the web.

The plot thickens as languages begin influencing each other through the web. Take English and Spanish, for example. As someone with ties with the Latin community, it is humorous to see Latinos beginning to incorporate English words, phrases, and acronyms – sometimes with humorous results – into their online communication.

“You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride

It is not uncommon to see English profanities peppered throughout a status or tweet which may simply describe a scrumptious sandwich or pleasant afternoon walk, as such words are viewed as hip outside the United States. While this may be a purely humorous example, it illustrates the challenge and beauty of global interconnectivity with regards to language. We have a lot of work to do to keep up, even as sites like Facebook begin incorporating embedded translators to make interaction easier. But, we also have so many opportunities to learn about the world beyond our homes, and beyond even our borders.

The first thing I found interesting in this weeks reading was the date in which communication (more specifically video chat) began to be researched. The book says that it began in the 70s. When I think chatting I think more modern techniques such as Skype, FaceTime, etc. probably because they are the chosen mule of my generation. I was not aware that they were in the process of installing video chats for work purposes.

Something else that I appreciate about the author and found interesting, was his insistence on the continuation of face to face/physical contact. he says at one point, “I’d be the first to insist, there’s inviting like a warm hug.” I don’t know why I found that funny. Possibly because he’s an author on society’s new chosen form of communication, how it affects us, and what could be next. He must have spent years researching which could have strongly isolated him, but he still prefers warm contact. There is to replacement for that. Internet may take away loneliness but does nothing for  the remain for interpersonal contact.

Finalky, quite astonishing to me, is the science behind texting and text lingo. To me it’s simple texting, means nothing. Everyone does it. But there are scientists, researchers, writers, etc who study these things in depth. It has been named, studied, there are college courses on it. And prior to reading the first few chapters of this book. I remained completely oblivious to how it is a major for of communication.