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.
I thought the Jones &Schieffelin reading was the most current, topic wise of the readings. I use IM so infrequently, the YouTube study seemed more relevant. I thought their conclusion in particular was worthwhile, showing that the slang/abbreviations used by users actually demonstrate a better understanding of the words/phrases that they are able to adapt them into humor.
You made the comment ” the technology doesn’t control us as much as we adapt its capabilities to suit our needs.” Do you feel that people use linguistic language, abbreviations etc. in order to fit in? Will a person feel out of place if they do not know what the lingos and things mean? How would the world look at someone that is not new to the country but has no clue what everyone is saying when they talk/text like this?
I don’t think that use of abbreviations, emoticons, and other elements that have evolved out of CMC is a result of trying to fit in. I think it results from our latent desires to communicate with each other faster, more often and to remain connected. But, of course, not every single person wants this. But the majority of us do, that’s why CMC is so dominant. So those who don’t want this may have to get used to CMC to fit in and keep up with modern times.
I agree with Tim, I think the evolution of abbreviations and emotions did not surge up of people trying to fit in, but rather trying to find faster ways to communicate. For example in chat, it was going so fast, and sometimes it is faster and easier to respond when your answer is short and maybe abbreviated.
I also found Thurlows statement about how adults criticize text messaging as a form of code that is ruining the English language and the ability to properly socialize. Mainly because I have taught at least five adults how to text. Not to mention the constant questions about abbreviations trying to fit in with other adults.
“to fit in” is not the only reason why some adults want to learn this new language. As a mother, I would like to know the language my daughter is using, and this is why in the first place I learned English. My kids are natural born American, I’m not, so I had to learn their language. Now with the latest tech. a new language emerged , so I have to learn it to communicate with the others and understand all my kids are saying. Why we always look at it from the negative way and say ” It destroyed the English language.” Why not deal with it as a second language to learn and get the benefit instead of keep critisizing its negative outcomes?
Evolution is inevitable in our world. In thinking about communication history and the way media is saturated down to society. Our communication avenues are much broader, faster, and available 24-7. Once upon a time in America families had to hudle around a stero that only produced a show via voice for a short period of time. Then advancements such as television came about with limitations.
One of the major influences on the change to the English language is there are so many “presenters” that are giving us information but do not speak the same “English” language. Technology has put us in a momentum of faster and if we were to take the time to spell out everything on line I don’t think that he internet would be as successfull as it has developed to be.
While some findings state that acronyms were not as common as people thought in 2008, I have to say that it has become far more common in today’s world. Statements such as “LOLZ” and “OMG” are very common in television shows, webchats, and text messages. I’m afraid I must say that based on several blogs by our classmates, it has even affected the way some people talk to each other face-to-face. As for the differences between IMs posted by ladies and those posted by guys, I can’t say anything since I’ve never posted an IM in my life. Personally, I think it is a matter of who you talk to.