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”.
Author Archives: Erica
Blog 3: Chapter 3 and Gerrand
The information in Chapter 3 of the Baym textbook and Gerrand’s article “Estimating Linguistic Diversity on the Internet: A Taxonomy to Avoid Pitfalls and Paradoxes” addressed some interesting concepts regarding gender within contextual influences on online communication and how to avoid some of the pitfalls when estimating the diversity of languages used on the internet.
Baym noted that differences in communication skills can reveal the gender of those communicating in an online setting. According to the textbook “messages written by women are more likely to include qualifications, justifications, apologies, and expressions for support…Groups with more men use more factually oriented language and calls for action, less self-disclosure, and fewer attempts at tension prevention”. Moreover, he also pointed out that these technological and social qualities may even influence intimacy or the quality of interactions.
Another interesting fact the book mentioned was how little attention cultural identity receives, notwithstanding, the United States is a melting pot of different cultures.
I found it valuable to learn in Gerrands’ research that estimating linguistic diversity on the internet is not an easy task. I enjoyed getting the opportunity to compare the effectiveness of each indicator.
Faithful to Gerrand’s statistics my previous experience on the internet showed a dominance of the English language over non-English languages. However, when I was younger and frequented chat rooms, few online users would type in non-English languages such as French, Persian, etc. This seems to agree with Gerrand’s charts and figures.
The growing rate of people contacting various regions of the world and the growing influence of other rapidly developing countries will most likely increase the use of other languages on the internet. The issue of language diversity on the internet is currently important and will continue to increase in importance in the foreseeable future.
Blog 2: New Technologies and CMC
New technology generates in society the realization that new heights of accomplishments are achievable. However, with every new technological achievement there is a downside. The birth and development of computer mediated communication (CMC) systems is not the exception. CMC has undoubtedly captivated our society while at the same time creating new reasons for fear. Will it lose its appeal and fascination with time?
It is undeniable that the astounding growth in CMC use has resulted in great benefits to our society. It is difficult to imagine a successful research project without the expeditious speed and exhaustive resource that the Internet offers. Internet technology has become so important that its influence on the outcome of our last presidential election is undeniable. Today, it affects almost every aspect of society. Some dare to conclude that without the Internet, life as we currently know it would disappear to the disappointment of humanity.
It is undeniable, however, that with all the advantages the Internet offers us, it has brought along disadvantages that some find very concerning, and in some cases frustrating. Children are victims, identities are stolen, privacy is at risk, and targeted databases threaten to cripple large corporations and even governments. Yet, this is not CMC systems’ biggest threat.
I agree with Susan Herring that CMC’s biggest threat is the extensive familiarity of its users with the system. On page 33 of her article she writes: “CMC has become more of a practical necessity than an object of fascination and fetish”. This familiarity threatens to push this system into the land of great to remember antiques without a functional purpose. However, the continuous efforts of visionaries and technological designers continually simplifying the system and increasing its fascination with new technologies will guarantee many years of positive contribution to our society.
Blog 1: What user type are you?
According to the Pew Internet Technology User Type Quiz, I fit into the 7% of adults who “use online access to seek out information nuggets, and these nuggets make their way through these users’ social networks via desktop and mobile access”. This group is known as Media Movers. Media Movers have lots of online and mobile routines. According to the Pew Internet Technology User Type Quiz description of groups, I am most likely to pass on certain information nuggets or pictures I find on the internet that are interesting to me. These social exchanges are central to my use of information and communication technology. For me, Cyberspace as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity is less important (Pew Internet).
My type describes me fairly well. I thoroughly enjoy the “rush” of finding information I think will interest or entertain others. Once that happens, I cannot resist the desire to share. I admit, however, that I share characteristics from other user types. Other types that fit me slightly are Ambivalent Networker and Roving Node. I do have an online routine which involves checking Facebook and Twitter and then moving on to watching either Netflix/Hulu or doing homework eventually if I have some due.
Discussing different types of technology users awakens in the participants of the discussion an awareness of how different people use and communicate through technology. This knowledge allows people to become more effective in communicating with others. Furthermore, it allows people to get information to others more efficiently as they become more aware of society’s technological practices.