Chatspeak and the Evolution of Language
While the digital age of word-processing has certainly shaped how we create and interact with the written word, I also believe that it’s changed the way that we utilize language in our daily conversations and writing. Online language and “chatspeak” has been traditionally shaped by our cultural use of technology: we found further shortcuts to make social interactions through technological tools even easier for ourselves. Think of the days of MSN Messenger or AOL: we frequently used shortened phrases in the form of acronyms to aid in quick and efficient communications with one another. For some, these were uncrackable codes to begin with, but soon became a prevalent part of one’s digital language. And those shortcuts and codes haven’t really gone away after appearing on the scene several years ago. (See this Primer for (Learning In) Cyberspace, specifically the portion on Cyber Discursive Ethics from Francis Feng and Stephen Petrina (2008) from UBC, who promote the use of chat acronyms in live fora within ETEC 531.)
For example, when conversing in an electronic space (through messaging, chats, or commentary on a site), we might want to indicate sarcastic tones in text or that we find something amusing. People will often type “lol” to indicate “laugh out loud”, even if they are not truly “lol-ing”. The tone of sarcasm in text might not otherwise be detectable without the inclusion of this acronym. However, I’ve also heard people say these words aloud, in regular conversations, completely removed from their cultural context of the digital domain. Much of this module reminded me of the topic of chatspeak and how it was shaping our use of language, so I explored it further as a little bit of personal curiosity, paired with the fact that I have some personal experience in arguments over modern spellings and/or uses of words. Check out this radio show from NPR from 2012, where the host discusses not only chatspeak but also of the alteration of spellings and our gradual changes to language over several eras. It was very interesting, and they run it as a little debate over the course of the show.
While I sit planted firmly in the stance that traditional spellings and language use in writing provide explicit meaning to the reader, I don’t mind the seeping of chatspeak into our secondary oral culture. I think that it adds a component of the digital self to the in-person experience – bringing their digital identities into parity with their physical self. It may suggest that these worlds – physical and digital – are not actually separate from one another, nor should they be.
So just some food for thought: the course content for Module 4 states: “…those without knowledge of how to change settings [of word processor tools], or of how English spelling and grammar varies in different regions, are not likely to challenge the authority of the software.” Would we not, then, fail to challenge the cultural norms that form within our digital experiences with one another? Does our language evolve as a result of the way our culture shapes the uses of specific technologies? Has it always done this? That’s not to say that there aren’t people who haven’t contested it in the past or present, but I think it’s becoming almost undeniable that our utilization of language has shifted in the digital age.
References:
Donvan, J., (Narrator). (2012, March 1). A case for and against proper spelling [Radio broadcast episode]. In NPR (Producer), Talk of the Nation. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
Module 4 Course Contents. (2015). The calculator of the humanist: Word processing and the reinvention of writing [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://connect.ubc.ca/webapps/blackboard/execute/displayLearningUnit?course_id=_75468_1&content_id=_2913621_1&framesetWrapped=true
Petrina, S., & Feng, F. (2008) Primer for (Learning In) Cyberspace. Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/dconnery/files/2010/09/Primer-for-learning-in-Cyberspace1.pdf on October 24 2015
Victoria,
Thank you for your post – some interesting tangents to explore.
I took time to listen to the NPR radio show that you referenced. One of the phrases that caught my ear described language as “living and moving all the time”. This organic view of language helps me to understand the changes that are explicit within the history of English language. Within the broadcast, references were made of Shakespeare and how his use of language was fluid and evolving. Recently while briefly exploring the origins of the English language I came across information describing how Shakespeare would often make up words in his writing that are now commonly used such as “bandit”, “eyeball”, “leapfrog” and “scuffle” (Henry, 2010). Talk about an influence!
Lewis Carroll wrote a poem called “Jabberwocky” and within the rhyme and rhythm the reader encounters ongoing nonsense words and language. The words on their own have no meaning, but within the context of the rest of the poem the reader is able to define the nonsense words and establish a sense of understanding. The same can be said for the text language that has evolved – on its own it seems odd and meaningless, but within context and regular use, it becomes accepted with diminishing ambiguity.
As a further thought on the evolving of language, I recently came across an article from “The Telegraph” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/) that describes the possible removal of words related to nature i.e. “bramble”, “clover”, “willow” from the Oxford Junior Dictionary. These nature words would be replaced with words that are considered more relevant to children’s lives such as “broadband” and “allergic”. As the cultural trends of childhood see young people spending more time interacting with technology than with nature, it does seem inevitable that there will be a loss of nature related vocabulary in their lives while an increase of technology related language rests at their fingertips and upon their lips. As a mama who takes her children on regular nature walks, I find this decline of relationship with the outdoors sad for this generation of childhood and constantly seek balance between the digital and the natural for the lives of my own children.
In closing, I appreciate your statement about how the physical and digital selves are inseparable from one another. In our culture the physical and digital selves have merged somewhat unintentionally, yet inevitably. Our selves are a reflection of our environment and it seems that the easy and desired accessibility to digital surroundings has shapen our beings, whether we meant for it to or not.
~ Jessica
Donvan, J., (Narrator). (2012, March 1). A case for and against proper spelling [Radio broadcast episode]. In NPR (Producer), Talk of the Nation. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
Ferris, H. (1957). Favorite poems: old and new. New York: Double Day Books for Young Readers.
Furness, H. (2015). Atwood, morpurgo and motion join campaign to bring nature back to children’s dictionary. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Henry, Marcia K., (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction.
Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Thanks for your comment, Jessica! Sorry for getting to it so late. I wish we got notifications through the blog instead of manually checking our posts.
Thanks for bringing up a connection to the natural world in your comment. I love the peace that I feel when I’m out on a hike and the appreciation I feel when I get a view, or see some kind of natural phenomenon that I would never experience on my couch on my device. My hope for reconnecting kids to nature, in the world they’re growing up in, is that they can use digital devices to better capture and analyze natural processes in the educational setting. Another great way to capture curiosity in nature is through digital photography. I began practicing it myself and it’s a lot of fun! (instagram.com/msvictoriaolson)
Hi Victoria,
I found your blog very interesting and found myself making many connections to my students who are all second language speakers. One of the things I found when I moved here three years ago, was the amount of chatspeak there was in relation to Canada. It took me a while to understand whattsapp messages (the primary mode of electronic communication) as entire texts were sent in abbreviated language. I found it even harder, in the professional domain when my Principal of Academics would send us group messages in chatspeak.
You asked this question close to the end of the post:
Does our language evolve as a result of the way our culture shapes the uses of specific technologies?
I am going to take a moment to explore that idea. I would think that if one were to do a study on chatspeak, you would find that culture really does shape the way we use the language. Here in Brunei, the language and knowledge was traditionally transmitted orally until very recently. It is not a reading/ writing culture per se. As a result, chatspeak has become a major written form of the language (other than the obvious things like newspapers and books). I would argue that most of the reading my students do over the day is from social media interaction. As a result, their conversations are often entirely abbreviated. For example, I was just going through my friend’s text messages and we found this:
Dri awl udh kh cg.
In traditional Malay the phrase would read:
Dari awal sudah kah cikgu (Since the beginning, teacher)
Other phrases like:
Sajah (just/only) were written as ja
Kata (to say or tell) were written as kta
Inda (no) was nda
Belum (not yet) blm
Bagitahu (to tell) gta
Upon further scrolling through her phone we found that her English chat groups were actually far more formal with lots less chatspeak than her Malay chat groups which were predominantly written in abbreviated form.
Granted, this is just one tiny sampling, but I wonder, if traditionally oral cultures in other places have also embraced chatspeak in a way that has made it their own.
Wow, Rave! That’s such a great example to share. Thank you for that! If you didn’t already know the written language when you arrived, that certainly would have made it more challenging to learn it. Learning languages is a challenge, let alone depicting the slang and chatspeak that come along with the mobile environments that surround the culture. I wonder what the motivation is behind being more formal in English? A motivation to learn it well to use later in life since it’s so globally central? Or is it because they don’t know the slang due to lack of immersion in the culture?
Thanks again for sharing that illuminating comment!