Thoughts on From Papyrus to Cyberspace (1999)
In the radio broadcast, “From Papyrus to Cyberspace” a question is posed by a gentleman in regards to abbreviated terms used in email and its impact on written English. He continues to claim he did not see the impact as beneficial. Is technology driving the written English language down a road towards a crude and shoddy form of communication, or is this a natural process that goes hand-in-hand with society’s needs? The recent surge in instant messaging (IM), since the turn of the century, has seen abbreviations such as LOL (Laugh Out Load) and OMG (Oh My God) come into commonplace in written English (Tagliamonte & Denis, 2008, p. 3). Emoticons (smiley faces) have begun to take the place of basic punctuation such as periods and exclamation marks (Baron & Ling, 2011 p 48). James O’Donnell and James Engell (1999) identify that with the development of technology, language witnesses a change in accordance to the need of a society. In the case of IM language what types of change have we been witnessing in the turn of the century?
As O’Donnell and Engell (1999) have already examined this change in the English language is nothing new. They give the example of Thomas Edison coining the phrase “Hello” upon the invention of the telephone. This phrase, although maybe sounding artificial to some people at that time, fulfilled a need that accompanied this change in society. The need for a neutral greeting to begin a conversation with somebody you could not see.
As text messaging, emails and other forms of electronic communication have become more common, IM language has developed to address a further number of society’s needs. O’Donnell and Engell (1999) identify the need for efficiency. Because typing a message takes longer than speaking abbreviations have naturally become more popular to save time. They use the example, F2F instead of ‘Face-to-Face.’ A study taken by Sali and Denis (2008) showed that teenagers in North America have developed a need to express more emotion in their IM language (pg 4). It was put forth the possibility that, “that IM is simply mirroring the emerging tendency for written genres to be more like speech” as it accompanies conventional face-to-face communication (28). During their study they found that IM language was riddled with emotional language, such as laughter, and other sounds (Baron & Ling, 2011 p 52). These findings are further echoed by Baron and Ling who found that the use of emoticons, in IM language, further enhance the emotional output of text just as an exclamation or question mark would in conventional text. (55).
To conclude, the question of whether abbreviations that have been brought on by IM language are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for written English seems to be irrelevant. Many of the attributes that IM language has produced has stemmed from a need, not only to be more efficient, but also to procure new ways of express emotion. As the technology itself evolves, such as the further development of voice messaging, so will the needs of society. Whether these abbreviations are destine to join the English language in the long term is questionable. What should remain constant, however, is with the change in technology will come a change in society’s needs and thus will procure change in written English.
References:
Baron, N. S., & Ling, R. (2011). Necessary Smileys & Useless Periods. Visible Language, 45(1/2), 45-67
O’Donnell, J. & Engel, J. (1999). “From Papyrus to Cyberspace” [radio broadcast episode]. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Forum
Tagliamonte, S. A., & Denis, D. (2008). LINGUISTIC RUIN? LOL! INSTANT MESSAGING AND TEEN LANGUAGE. American Speech, 83(1), 3-34.
Great post Adam. I appreciate your take on the impact that technology could (and is having) in the evolution of English as a language, but I appreciate even more that fact that you do it without moralizing the phenomenon. Let me direct you to this Ted talk by John McWhorter, maybe you have seen before. Let me know what you think.
Ernesto,
Thank you so much for the TED talk. I love the way in which John McWhorter described texting as “fingered speech.” It is an excellent example of how language both written and spoken evolves over time. It is also interesting how he explains the acronym LOL has evolved itself. Instead of simply Laugh Out Loud it has now changed to display empathy to another person. It makes one realise how quickly this new form of language has evolved in the past ten years. It will be very interesting to see how this new style of communication continues to evolve over the next decade. Perhaps texting acronyms will filter their way into everyday speech. I will give a link to an NPR segment that investigates this further.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5221618
Adam,
I love your approach to this topic. The supposed regression of the English language with this development of abbreviated terms has been viewed as negative for far too long. I appreciate your idea that it is not hindering the language but is simply keeping up with the ever changing technology. Everything in this day and age is developed to be faster and more efficient than its predecessor. I suppose for arguments sake one could look at old English language and how far it came, even before the introduction of instant message abbreviations. It certainly changed from its roots in that instance too. I got my minor in English and do sometimes have a hard time getting students to eliminate the abbreviated word from their formal essays, and this is where I don’t think it is appropriate or intellectually sound. I wonder if developing an assignment where students can only use abbreviated IM language would help students find an outlet for this?
Thank again, your post really made me think!
It would be an interesting assignment. Coming from an elementary background I do not necessarily have to worry about these abbreviations making their way into my students writing. At least not yet. I tend to agree with you that it does not make formal formal essays intellectually sound. I’m wondering if this mindset makes me somewhat of a ‘linguistic dinosaur?’ Again I believe the assignment would be very interesting. However I do not believe it would stop this tidal wave of linguistic change.