Upon taking the course, English Grammar for Everyone, one of the first ideas that was brought to our attention was that, so long as the text was decipherable, there was no such thing as "incorrect grammar." After having this concept drilled into my head biweekly for an entire semester, it is a belief of mine that those who choose to marginalize a person for their particular way of speech are incredibly finicky and need to find something worthwhile to do with their extraordinary amount of time. When the chapter opened to acknowledge the idea that many find digital language to be for the impoverished, I was slightly upset. However, as I read on, I truly and one hundred percent support the ideas I have read.
There were several different topics within the text that caught my attention, but the main point of everything felt like the text was attempting to teach you how the younger generation uses text language, and in some cases addresses the audience as if we were our grandparents. That being said, it was an extremely easy to digest section of text.
The way in which the text describes the difference in communication between the face-to-face phone-to-phone was very interesting, as within this description, I realized that I fit into the ideas that were perpetuated in many different ways. The differences between synchronous and asynchronous communications are two concepts that I constantly find myself dealing with. In many cases, I'd rather approach a friend in person and talk to them about absolutely anything, but when I'm crunched for time, I'd shoot a friend a message and yet, still anticipate the instant response that I would receive if I were to talk to them in person. This idea also plays a bit into transaction cost (and a bit of laziness as well). It is more convenient for me to briefly ask a single question without getting into the whosits and whatsits of daily conversation that I might not have time for at that moment.
Another idea that the class briefly touched upon was discussed in the text under the idea of "media richness." I standby whoever it was who claimed that the difference in grammar, emoticons, and punctuation dictate a language tone all of its own when speaking person to person. Communication and the tone of everything in written text becomes so absolutely individualized that sending the text, "Where are you?" to one person may simply be asking a question, whereas to another person may sound angry. The tone of texting is so particular and confrontation is almost inevitable, even when the intent of the author was not intentionally confrontation in the least. On a personal note, if anyone ever sends me ROFL or LMAO, I automatically assume they cheerily breathed air from their nostrils and did no such extreme expression of laughter at all. They could have been laughing, but that's simply how I perceive the abbreviations.
Texting has given the modern day user the ability to communicate more quickly with less hassle, but at the same time, it is all too common place for one to become solely reliant on such a technology. As a result it is possible to become a social hermit, but a word of advice: don't do that.
The idea of "media richness" is slightly horrifying to me. The world that we live in has been completely changed in countless ways do to digital language. For better or worse is hard to say, but the fact that it has changed the way we communicate can not be argued. Texting is it's own language, as are emoticons and punctuation placement. To some of us, computation indicates anger and for some of us, it indicates the opposite. We could send the same message to two different people and make them feel entirely different emotions based on their personal preference. To one person, a period could mean anger and to another, it could mean the person sending it was upset. I heavily rely on emoticons to indicate that I am joking when sending a text message, especially the red angry face. If I want someone to know I'm jokingly mad, I'll send that to indicate it. I also use the thumbs up sign a lot when I'm being sarcastic on it. After reading your post, I realize that it is entirely ridiculous that I rely on little pictures to convey how I feel so much, but it is efficient. For me, the pictures are a better indicator than even punctuation. In person though, I rely on my OWN emotions and body language to convey how I feel. I don't hold up a picture of an emoticon to express myself. But while texting, I feel that I can express myself more accurately with the pictures more so than I can with smiley or sad faces. It's honestly incredible how text messages can be read so differently from person to person. I am so careful about how I type when I talk to specific people, where in person I talk the same (generally) to everyone. In a way, it is good because I think more about what I'm saying, but it's bad how much it can affect a conversation with someone in a negative way if I'm not careful.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking person to person is an incredibly important social technique that I believe we have lost the finesse that we once had for doing so. When having something to tell somebody, we used to automatically call the person, or even want to tell them face to face, but instead, we resort to texting. In my opinion, it seems like we're losing our ability to communicate. However, we're creating a whole new genre of communication of our own. Not many generations can say that of themselves.
ReplyDeleteIt was really interesting to me when you wrote, "I standby whoever it was who claimed that the difference in grammar, emoticons, and punctuation dictate a language tone all of its own when speaking person to person." I couldn't agree more either! Countless arguments have been started because of phrases through text being taken the wrong way, or even the wrong messages being portrayed. I also agree with Lizzie, I also try to be careful when I type to specific people and also try to be very clear with what I'm saying. There's nothing worse than getting into an argument over texting! Does that really count as an argument to begin with?