When using grammar one makes choices based on two factors: efficiency and clarity. Clarity ensures that what is being read can be interpreted in only one way and that the information presented cannot be confused. Efficiency tries to state what is being said in as few words as possible. The same balancing act seems to be in place in regards to online language. As Jones and Hafner point out, SMS texting and social media sites such as Twitter limit the amount of characters that are available to use, so "the proliferation of acronyms and abbreviations in digital text are, from this perspective, seen as attempts to compensate for these constraints" (68). The limitations cause online writers to place more emphasis on efficiency rather than clarity, a choice that sacrifices the meaning of what is being written.
The lack of rich cues and contextualization cues create an even more dramatic dynamic between the clarity and efficiency of online language versus face to face communication. When people communicate, a variety of rich cues are used to help interpret what is being said. For example, an increase in pitch at the end of a sentence suggests a question, and a smile or raising of eyebrows suggest a positive or playful message. When using text, the clarity of words is easily lost in translation. Innovation of formal grammar rules have allowed an interesting evolution of written interactions to occur. Users have developed a clever use of punctuation, emoticons, lexicalization sounds, capitalization, and acronyms such as LOL and LMAO to combat the lack of clarity in digital communication. Although reading a stranger's digital conversation may be unpleasant, seeing what factors of communication each individual favors and how the clarity-efficiency scale is balanced is certainly fascinating.
For better or worse, written and spoken communication are evolving due to the increasingly popularity of online social interaction, a fact that will affect every facet of life. Writing has become more concise and new social languages have been created, but an issue with face to face interactions has been noted as well. How will online language impact interpersonal relations long term? That is something yet to be discovered.
I agree that twitters character limit sacrifices meaning sometimes, but it also helps us learn what is important to say in those 145 characters. This helps with exactly what we did in class on Thursday- take out as much information while still getting the point across. Very many times I have sent a text message with responses I was not anticipating. This is because of exactly what you state in your second paragraph- we can't be exactly sure what the intention of that text is without clues like a smile or a wink. This is why emoticons and SMS acronyms have come about. I think that yes, they are helpful but more importantly I agree that it is fascinating. It will continue to grow for the rest of our lives. It amazes me every single day.
ReplyDeleteI am very old fashioned when it comes to technology and the way that we use language while using technology so I completely agree with you. Digital communication blurs the line between what we mean to say and how our words are interpreted. Like you said, many people misinterpret or completely miss the cues while communicating through technology that they would not miss if they were talking face to face. Thinking about what the future has in store for technology is a scary thought, but it is something that is inevitable. We need to be able to evolve into a race that is not scared of technology and online communication, but embraces it.
ReplyDeleteIf I had a dollar for everything a text was not understandable or taken out of context I would be a rich man. Call me old fashioned, but I miss the intimacy of face to face interaction during texts, especially while dealing with sarcasm. :p
ReplyDeleteIf it's supposed to be these emoticons, punctuation, and acronyms that illustrate what the text-sender's mood is. Why do many of us feel the same way and miss out on what the sender is feeling? I think you're right when you said it's this lack of pitch and tonality in a person's voice that were all missing. Although the emotes are useful for smaller messages and feelings, it's always a better idea to convey the “bigger” messages in person.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely one of those people who doesn't text much, although I do use texting to make plans with friends or even have conversations with friends who are far away. I think that friends who know me really well can usually pick up my mood and tone just from what I send them, although there are occasional misunderstandings. There is little doubt that all of this technology changes the way we interact, but I really don't think it has made us any worse at interacting(although it does make it easier to avoid interacting).
ReplyDeleteNowadays, it seems like limitations in social media text is mostly to avoid spamming and causing long, irrational arguments. But nonetheless acronyms still plague the digital world. Are you not excited for the day that children will receive a manual of all the acronyms available on the internet to instantly induct this digital morality into their lives? I know I'm not. But if that's going to be the new age definition of "efficiency," then I suppose all is already lost.
ReplyDelete