Internet Chat and the Devolution of Language

Question

I'm researching a project on real-time written communication (AIM, ICQ, etc.) and its effects on written language. Being a word lover myself, I'm chagrined at the possibility that, with everyone on the Internet learning to write the way they talk (and condensing writing further into abbreviations and shorthand), the English language of general use will gradually lose much of its variety, capacity for individual expression, and ability to convey precise, specific concepts.

I'm aware of linguists' arguments that language evolves no matter what, and that the development of slang and the loss of certain rules like the "John and I (vs. me) went to the store" rule are perfectly legitimate and often make more sense than "standard" usage and for the most part I agree.. But when a generation is growing up whose normal mode of written expression is:
"omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted to scream!"
...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution.

I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to hell? Is it inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?

Thanks,
Jim

Usenet · Accepted Answer

Most of the above, I believe.
That reminds me of the joke about the old Sanskrit message found on a wall that read something like "Our new generation has no moral values."

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I'm researching a project on real-time written communication (AIM, ICQ, etc.) and its effects on written language. Being a word ... think. Is English going to ****? Is it inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?[/nq]
People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play, and that seems to be what's going on in your example. Forms can change, and temporary ones develop, and those changes don't seem harmful to language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be harmful?
I wonder if this kind of complaint happens because the complainer has a big investment in a certain kind of language use, and they feel it's devalued by lots of people going in other directions. Has it ever been shown that a language evolved to its permanent detriment ? I mean in the sense of impairing communication, not by some conservative esthetic standard.

john

Usenet · Answer

The very political correct vocabulary is an epitome of impaired communication. If I tell you that "she has a special child", do you understand what I mean, or you need more context?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The very political correct vocabulary is an epitome of impaired communication. If I tell you that "she has a special child", do you understand what I mean, or you need more context?[/nq]
It needs more context, for sure. But even politically correct vocabulary is serving the purposes of its users. The defect lies in their overly scrupulous intentions, more than in language.

john

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I'm researching a project on real-time written communication (AIM, ICQ, ... it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?[/nq]
[nq:1]People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play, and that seems to be what's going ... evolved to its permanent detriment ? I mean in the sense of impairing communication, not by some conservative esthetic standard.[/nq]
*

English is Munglish

*
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those can be play, and that seems to be what's going ... temporary ones develop, and those changes don't seem harmful to language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be harmful?[/nq]
Regardless of language forms being harmful or not (and I agree with you in spirit), my example touches on another trend that I'm just as concerned with: Loss of personality or individuality.

In my opinion, the less you type (say, in an email, chat room, or forum) to someone else, the less of your personality comes through to that person. While smileys and abbreviations can be apt and sometimes expressive enough, I still think that if what you type is close to what you would say out loud, you express yourself better.

Internet abbreviations, shorthand and emoticons are so homogeneous that the writing of people who rely too much on them turns into a kind of inscrutable code that doesn't represent them very well as people.

At least, those are my thoughts. Dissent or discussion is welcome.

Jim

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]"omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was like hey do u wanna hang ... think. Is English going to ****? Is it inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up?[/nq]
It's a way of excluding outsiders. I had to read the above very slowly and carefully before figuring out what it meant. Presumably the people who write this way can read it just as fluently as we read normal English.
In all likelihood the author of this example is bilingual, and writes just like us when the occasion demands.

Peter Moylan (Email Removed) http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]People adapt language to suit their ends. One of those ... language in general. How could exercise of flexibility be harmful?[/nq]
[nq:1]Regardless of language forms being harmful or not (and I agree with you in spirit), my example touches on another ... code that doesn't represent them very well as people. At least, those are my thoughts. Dissent or discussion is welcome.[/nq]
My off-the-cuff reaction is that the people who write messages such as the example you gave in your original post are not trying to show their individuality. They are, I suspect, at an age when strict conformity to the norms of their social group are the priority. Most people grow out of that, and the ones that don't have problems far beyond their use of language.
Richard R. Hershberger

Usenet · Answer

}
}>"omg!!1! the ohter day i was @ the store adn saw brad who was }>like hey do u wanna hang out b4 the show? ur hot! and i wannted }>to scream!"
}>
}>...I get a bit concerned that this is not evolution but devolution. }>
}>I'd like to know what others think. Is English going to ****? Is it }>inevitable? Is it nothing to worry about and I should shut up? }
} It's a way of excluding outsiders. I had to read the above very } slowly and carefully before figuring out what it meant.

How so? What is there in the example that seems meant to exclude outsiders. It seems to me to be a way to type fast. The context is real time written conversation, not (for instance) newsgroup postings or peer-reviewed journal articles.
} Presumably } the people who write this way can read it just as fluently as we } read normal English.
We? Now you've gone and wook up Areff.
} In all likelihood the author of this example is bilingual, and } writes just like us when the occasion demands.
Us?
Anyhow, I doubt it. The example is kid talk, typed fast. If you want to keep up, you can't pay much attention to what the other person is saying, and not much more to what you're saying. Screen time waits for no man.

The author might hope eventually to write like YJ.

It's not like the concept is new or anything. Back in the sixties we (sic) had a similar thing going in Teletype communications, where for practical purposes the fastest typer got his way. Being the ranking controller at the biggest station didn't hurt, mind you. But being the fastest typer snipped through a lot of the red tape.

R. J. Valentine

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Internet abbreviations, shorthand and emoticons are so homogeneous that the writing of people who rely too much on them turns into a kind of inscrutable code that doesn't represent them very well as people.[/nq]
Maybe it represents them exactly - you are what you type?

Internet Chat and the Devolution of Language

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Engl

Related Questions