This was a very interesting topic for this weeks blog assignment. Baym pointed out a lot a issues that goes on with how we communicate online and what potential barriers we are up against. I agree and disagree with Baym on his ideas about our behavior changing when we become easily distracted with online communication. Baym stated that “Communicators have to work harder to achieve their desired impact and be understood,” which entails that he believes online communication hinders us from becoming more intune with one another (Baym, 54). In my opinion, communication online and in person is very different and it sometimes is better to communicate online so a person will not see facial expressions or hear any type of tones that may be disrespectful. He also talked about social cues. Social cues are expressions of the body, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. that can be a good or bad cue depending the type of conversation that it brought upon individuals. Baym expressed that people become more disengaged with audiences when there is a lack of social cues (Baym, 54). I agree with this topic of social cues because with social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram there are a lot communication disagreements and agreements with friends and followers and social cues can or cannot be expressed through words or sometimes pictures and emoticons. There is also disruptive behavior in online communication. The negative communication that is being portrayed is volatile and can sometimes become a serious issue with online communication.

The Gerrand article somewhat confused me about how there are a lot of limitations and problems with researching and language use on the Internet. I actually have had some problems with language online but there are websites nand applications that help people translate from one language to another. I have known some people to send me messages in Spanish or French and of course I had no clue what either of the messages said. I just typed the message into my translation app and it gave me everything the person told me. This can be a problem in the near future because a lot of people do not know about the translation methods which can then slow down the process of communicating. I can either make a person frustrated about having to find out what their communicator is talking about or can be a challenge to make people want to learn a new language and find out what he/she is saying to them.

In chapter three there were a lot of interesting points that caught my eye. “Media with fewer social cues often trigger hopes that people will become more equal and more valued for their minds than their social identities, but also raise fears that interactions, identities, and relationships will become increasingly shallow, untrustworthy, and inadequate,” (Bayum, 50-51). This is completely opposite in 2013. Media itself places people in a hierarchal position. The person with the most followers is the leader of the pack and the person with least amount is seen as the person who is least credible. Relationships are becoming stronger and stronger both business and personal. Businesses are able to build relationships with people across the world based off of trust and now people who are in long distance relationships can Skype, video message, chat, and tango thousands of miles apart. Not to mention the online dating “success stories.”  I also found it interesting that the people who were surveyed favored face to face communication most, phone conversations were not intimate enough, and people felt the internet was not personal enough but always available (Bayum, 50). I understood why face to face would be the most favored. Face to face communication is one of the richest forms of communication but personally it is not the most effective way to communicate. After watching the class first chat session I felt more informed about the topics presented more so than the things discussed in the class I took afterwards.

I found it interesting that Gerrand researched web presence, but did not seem to take into consideration the countries/languages that do not have the luxury to communicate online, because the outcome could have been differently.

I have not had any non-English speaking encounters online. People speaking different languages online will not be a problem mainly because most people prefer English simply to ensure their message is perceived correctly.

I have not had much experience with non-english languages on the internet, nor have I have given much thought to the fact that the internet appears to be mainly written in English. However, I found Baym’s assertion that the predominance of the english language to be “further colonization of poor nations by those with greater wealth” to be a very interesting perspective (Baym, 70.) The internet is a great way to spread knowledge and information around the world, but sometimes we forget that many do not have access to the internet. Does this mean that they don’t have access to the same knowledge that others do? The answer to that question is yes. These poorer nations are now being left out of the world in an even larger way than before, while wealthier nations are moving ahead at an increasingly fast pace. This situation can lead to an larger socio-economic divide. Before I read this chapter, though, it was not something I had ever thought about before.

Another interesting chunk of knowledge from this chapter was that online female gaming avatars sell for 10% less than male avatars. This was such a small piece of information, but I think it speaks volumes of sexism in the gaming industry. I do not play online games, but I do play games for the Playstation and XBox. I have always noticed that female gaming characters are often portrayed in skimpy clothing and are generally not featured as the lead character. Often they are regulated to supporting players or victims.Even in games in which females can be used as the main character, they are usually not featured on the advertisements. The fact that evenly matched female avatars sell for less than their male equivalents is a disturbing fact.

Finally, I found the information about “flaming” to be some of the most interesting material in this chapter. I do not participate in online message boards nor do I ever comment on articles on the internet. One of the most entertaining things, though, is how heated the debates between different responders can become. I often think that these people, who are cursing at and demeaning others online, would not often be the kinds of people to speak like this to strangers in the real world. The anonymity of the internet does allow for people to act in ways that would not be allowed in face to face situations.

The first thing I found interesting were the quotes at the beginning of Chapter 3 in our text book. The quotes illustrate how people feel about communicating face to face, over the phone and online. People favored face to face communication the most stating it is “much more personal; I enjoy it the best” (Baym, 50). People least favored internet communicating stating that they “really couldn’t get a strong sense of the person”. A lot of people liked communicating over the telephone, but still said it was not near as personal as communicating face to face. I would agree with all of these statements. I do enjoy talking on the phone with someone if I can’t meet up with them in person, but I am also more excited to see them in person.

The second thing I found interesting was Social Presence Theory which is a theory that describes how “interactants perceive one another” (Baymn, 52). Social Presence Theory deals with facial expressions, direction of gaze, fillers such as “uh huh” and body language. All of these things indicate social presence. I found this interesting because it directly applies to myself. Usually when I am retelling a story to someone, I do use hand gestures to enhance my story.

The third thing I found interesting was  the section on “flames” which are comments online that considered particularly argumentative or agressive. I have heard of flames before. I have also seen people make negative comments about certain things or people. On Facebook. you see people getting into it a lot. I personally feel they should pick up the phone and call each other or just meet face to face to discuss whatever problem they are having. As far as arguing with random people over the internet that you don’t even know, I feel that this is pointless because you will most likely never see the people. I am going to use my anger on people I actually know.

I have had experiences with non English languages on the Internet before. There have been times I have wanted to read stories and they end up being in a different language. I could very well translate what I’m trying to read, but I just skip over it and find something in English to read. I think this will be an issue in the future.

This weeks readings were very very interesting, and it brought up points, that till this readings I had not given much thought to. The first thing that intrigued me came from Gerrand’s article. It brought up the problem with Global Reach’s assumptions concerning bilingualism and multilingualism. It basically assumes Internet users will use the internet in their first language. It also tends to show the estimates toward overestimating the use of minority languages. This causes a problem because it ignores other bilingual non English speakers who use English websites for business or for personal use.

The next thing that I came across that struck my interest was dealing with race, gender,rank, physical appearances, and other public features are not evident online. In the reading it mentioned that  people would become “depersonalized”, losing their sense of self or other. This would make media less sociable and not a good tool for effective bonds. Then on the other hand they mention how anonymity was going to result in a redistribution of social power. I do not think there is one single side happening right now, I think we have a little bit of both.

The last thing that caught my attention was “flaming”. I believe it caught my attention because I have seen it so many times, but I had no idea it had a name. One of the possibilities they associate flaming to be caused by is missing social cues. Meaning, there are somethings we are taught not to do or say in public, but on the internet, or online anything goes, because you are anonymous, and there is no accountability. However, it is a fact that people will be more nice online than to flame. I think this is true for the most part. I think about facebook because you have your name and your picture, so you are not so anonymous, unless it is a fake profile. Most people are friends and family. Once in a while you have people flaming each other, but most people are not on there to be bullies.

Gerrand (2007) pointed out the problems with the way that language diversity on the internet has been reported by other academic sources. Out of date census information and bad assumptions (such as the belief that internet users will only use their native/first language online) were only two of many reasons they point out that prior statistics about languages used online are unreliable.  The author argued that the most accurate way to measure internet usage would be through user activity, which is not currently possible. However, Gerrand article offers, “a new taxonomy…that distinguishes among user profile, user activity, web presence, and diversity index as separate indicators of language diversity on the Internet” but is quick to remind the reader that advances in software must be developed to increase the accuracy of language detection.

Although the validity of an overly English dominated internet is called into question in Gerrand’s peice, Danet & Herring (2007) points out that what we have been calling computer-mediated communication may be more accurately described as “computer-mediated English” (p.6). Danet & Herring go on to point out that language isn’t always subject to geographical boundaries. Look at modern customer service for American companies today, we have largely outsourced these services to India where call center workers who grew up bi-lingual often speak more technically correct English than the American callers, albeit with an accent. Danet &Herring also bring up issues within other languages that make it difficult for their language to be expressed over the internet because they contact special characters, as those found in Japanese, or diacritical markers, as those used in Hawaiian. English, generally without such special characters, doesn’t have the same challenges. The lack of this barrier and ease with which English can be communicated with current hardware (keyboards) and software have lead to, as the authors note, a “typographical imperialism”.

Finally, Baym (2010) brought up once again the Utopian hope that CMC would give us equality and the pessimist fear that it will diminish the quality of our relationships (p. 51). However, she is  quick to point out that despite mediated communication’s inability to match the quality of face-to-face interaction, that doesn’t mean it cannot have rich content or maintain “social context” (p.57). We are even reminded that incidences of flaming looked at in this chapter are over estimated because they are so memorable (p. 59). Further ways that people are using means within CMC to bring better understanding with the absence of social cues are explored such as emoticons, use of upper-case and lower-case lettering to convey tone of voice, and acronyms (p. 60-61). Additionally, Baym contradicts what many have come to believe recently, that CMC is bringing about the destruction of proper grammer, and instead confirms that writing in general was becoming more casual. To blame CMC for the trend would be like blaming the messenger, instead of the message.

Currently, I haven’t had any experience with other languages on the internet, but with the ease of establishing wireless internet and the explosion of mobile devices, I think an increase in web activity in other languages is sure to follow. I predict that as this is happening, there will be a focus on developing translation software that better interprets the slang and uses of acronyms in other languages. As we become increasingly global, many are sure to feel that their native language is under threat and an emphasis on writing in one language (such as English) could be seen as destructive to cultural identity. If better translation software is developed, then it could allow individuals to communication through CMC in ways they are unable to do so in person at a much larger capacity than they can now with current translation products.

There were several interesting points in the readings. I found that the majority of the readings were concerned with the use of the English language and the depletion of proper grammar, spelling, and effective communication. First interesting point was made by outlining how individuals perceive the intimacy of communication and how  we list them by nature from the most to least satisfaction.

It will be impossible to replace a face to face conversation in text only, emoticons and discussions online. The void of non verbal clues and communication are omitted and the sender is able to manipulate the receiver with their message without fully disclosing their true emotions. One challenge with communication by email, IM, Facebook, Twitter, etc., is the lack of a genuine communication. There are many times that I see posts and say to myself what in the world is that person thinking. I can now analyze that the individual is creating a persona and could be a “flamer.”

Furthermore, the use of spell check is not always our best friend! Social media and email are forms of blended communications and there will always be use of improper punctuation, spelling, and slang abbreviations. I don’t feel that the use of SMS will deplete the English language, however I do feel it influences the flow of a conversation and out of habit we are adapting and more acceptable as a society as a whole of the use of phrases such as “LOL, ROFL, SMH, etc.”

Which leads me to my third point of culture, online culture does not give an ethnicity face. The adaptability and acceptability of the users level of communication through online messages. I personally have not used another language on line other than English. However, I do see use of online translators in other languages where you type in your message in English, select the language, and viola you can now speak another language! I do not believe that ethnicity has a strong influence on the user, it is the accessibility of technology that hinders other cultures from having a presence online.

In the future the use of abbreviated conversation will continue. The main influences are speed, technology expansion, and the age of the users. Culturally, we could see a higher use from other countries as their governments give more freedom socially to their people. As for America we are so immersed in technology and obsessed with advanced versions that we are headed full speed to the next great way to communicate online.

The readings this week were quite interesting. Although I do not have experience dealing with non-English language personal on the internet however, I do have daily contact communicating with non-English speakers but interpreters come in handy.

In the Linguistic Diversity Reading the point about the National Censuses caught my attention. So many people that are fluent in different languages all use the internet. From interacting with people daily that are natives of different language I have noticed that many of them prefer to read documents in English instead of their native language. It was amazing that Gerrand used web presence to measure because all languages are not available on all computers and most people would use English for different reasons such as to ensure that the receive would understand, to try to become more fluent etc. So the researcher should have taken into consideration the reason for the web presence because it may have had an effect on the data.

Another interesting topic was in chapter 3 the flaming. “Walther et al.(1994) defined flaming as messages that include wearing, insults, name calling, negative affect, and typographic energy,” (Baym, 57). I have noticed that people result to name calling, insults etc. in order to obtain attention. I actually never heard of flaming before now. I believe people try to be nicer or just try to ignore flaming in order to try to make the person stop.

Other topics that caught my attention were the use of social cues, emoticons and linguistic language. Emotions are not easily express online and can be misunderstood. For example, typing in all capital letter could be taken as yelling. I was very amazed with Baym story of how people perceived CEO Jerry Yang’s memo. It is so common now to use LOL, haha and other language but I have never heard ROTFL.  How would the global research study results been different if each native language used different social cues and linguistic language to express themselves?