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 Out of date census information and bad assumptions (such as the belief that internet users will only use their native/first language online) were only two of many reasons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.