Naomi S. Baron’s article “Instant Messaging and the Future of Language” combats the notion that computer-mediated communication (CMC) is leading to the downfall of language and linguistic competency. Baron argues that language has been constantly adapting and changing over time. CMC is merely an adaptation of language that caters to the currently popular trend of using informal speech and communication. CMC is not as simplistic as many people believe it to be. Instead, it is a complex system that can be modified to reflect one’s personality and experiences. Several contractions, shorthand phrases and even IM specific terms have spawned from society’s rampant usage of CMC. CMC holds similar properties to other kinds of informal language as it does not adhere to strict guidelines and rules. While this makes CMC harder to control, it provides CMC with a wider range of linguistic diversity. Baron states that “it is hardly surprising to find many [adolescents] experimenting with a new linguistic medium (such as IM) to complement the identity construction they achieve through speech, clothing or hair style” (P. 30). She even likens this attitude to the constant usage of “like” or “totally” used by adolescents in the past. People can use CMC as a means to reflect who they are and what they are capable of without worrying as much about making minor grammatical mistakes.
Even throughout everyday conversation, people are creating new terms or shorthand expressions that are specific to their social groups. Language is constantly being modified and created to allow people more outlets to express themselves and their ideas in creative ways. The constant evolution of language is something that people must embrace and learn to understand rather than something that should be dismissed as strange and evil. People can even explore language in more in depth ways by investigating how different kinds of languages interact with one another.
While CMC veers away from academic speech towards a more informal style, it does not hinder students’ academic proficiency. Baron states that ultimately, instant messaging creates “no harm, but only if … teachers ensure their students develop a solid grasp of traditional writing conventions as well” (p.31). CMC and traditional language can work in tandem as long as people can easily differentiate when and how to use each type of language. By exposing students to various kinds of language, they can have even more opportunities to break down and understand language, and can gain access to skills that pure academic writing could not provide them with.
– Justin Bailey
Reference
Baron, N.S. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 30-31.
1 response so far ↓
ab53 // Jul 11th 2014 at 12:07 pm
“The constant evolution of language is something that people must embrace and learn to understand rather than something that should be dismissed as strange and evil”
This is interesting because I’ve swung from one side of this argument to the other in just a few years. I felt very opposed to the idea of compute-mediated communication due to my love of words and language and yes, even grammar. Eventually I began to question my own need for every sentence to conform to these socially constructed rules of the English Language. During my time at university I was very drawn to more unconventional and creative forms of writing, which often involved playing with the rules of grammar. I found that I was engaging an entirely different aspect of my knowledge to produce this kind of work.
In my practicum, I found most students were very capable of keep CMC out of their academic writing. I do believe in the importance of understanding how to switch registers and if I found that my students struggled with this then I might spend some time discussing it. However, like you have said, I wouldn’t treat CMC as an evil but rather as valuable and a wholly acceptable form of language evolution. I even designed a writing exercise that encouraged them to incorporate as many short-hand “texting” words as they could. I found my students were much more creative and more willing to try new things.
I think you’re right to challenge Baron’s article. Language has always changed, technology has changed increased the rate of the change and that seems to create a sense of uneasiness among people. So while I used to find myself asking why we can’t leave things in their beautifully structured and formal way, I’m now asking why is it that we only place value on “traditional conventions of writing” and ignore the weight and power carried by informal language.
-Aimee
You must log in to post a comment.