User:Glammy123/sandbox
It has also been suggested that the linguistic differences between Standard English and CMC can have implications for literacy education.[1] This is illustrated by the widely reported example of a school essay submitted by a Scottish teenager, which contained many abbreviations and acronyms likened to SMS language. There was great condemnation of this style by the mass media as well as educationists, who expressed that this showed diminishing literacy or linguistic abilities.[2]
In German, there is already considerable controversy regarding the use of anglicisms outside of CMC.[3] This situation is even more problematic within CMC, since the jargon of the medium is dominated by English terms. (here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) An extreme example of an anti-anglicisms perspective can be observed from the chatroom rules of a Christian site,[4] which bans all anglicisms ("Das Verwenden von Anglizismen ist strengstens untersagt!"), and also translates even fundamental terms into German equivalents.<HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Origin[edit]
The electronic medium provides a channel which facilitates and constrains our ability to communicate in ways that are fundamentally different from those found in other semiotic situations. Many of the expectations and practices which we associate with spoken and written language are no longer applicable.There are seven main modes of communication on the Internet. They include electronic mail. chatgroups, virtual worlds and blogs.[5]
The electronic character of the channel has a fundamental influence on the language of the medium. The options of communication for the user are constrained by the nature of the hardware needed in order to gain Internet access. Thus, productive linguistic capacity (the type of information that can be sent) is determined by the preassigned characters on a keyboard, and receptive linguistic capacity (the type of information that can be seen) is determined by the size and configuration of the screen. Additionally, both sender and receiver are constrained linguistically by the properties of the internet software and hardware linking them. According to Davis and Brewer, ‘eletronic discourse is writing that very often reads as if it were being spoken – that is, as if the sender were writing talking’.[6]In other words, one's language on the Internet is influenced largely by how the individual speaks.
Motivation[edit]
The primary motivation behind utilization of a slang unique to the Internet is an ease of communication. However, while Internet slang shortcuts save time for the writer, they take two times as long for the reader to understand, according to a study by psychologist Nenagh Kemp at the University of Tasmania.[7]
On the other hand, it has been observed that similar to the use of slang in traditional face-to-face speech or written language, slang on the Internet is often a way of indication group membership. [8]
Classes of slang[edit]
| Class | Description |
|---|---|
| Letter homophones | Included within this group are abbreviations and acronyms. An abbreviation is a shortening of a word, for example "CYA" for "see you". An acronym, on the other hand, is a subset of abbreviations and are formed from the initial components of a word. Examples of common acronyms include "LOL" for "laugh out loud" or "lots of love" and "BTW" for "by the way". There are also combinations of both, like "CYL8R" for "see you later". |
| Punctuation, capitalizations and other symbols | Such features are commonly used for emphasis or stress. Periods or exclamation marks may be used repeatedly for emphasis, such as "........" or "!!!!!!!!!!". Grammatical punctuation rules are also relaxed on the Internet. "E-mail" may simply be expressed as "email", and apostrophes can be dropped so that "John's book" becomes "johns book". Examples of capitalizations include "STOP IT", which can convey a stronger emotion of annoyance as opposed to "stop it". Bold, underline and italics are also used to indicate stress. |
| Onomatopoeic and/or stylized spellings | Onomatopoeic spellings have also become popularized on the Internet. One well-known example is "hahaha" to indicate "laughter". Onomatopoeic spellings are very language specific. For instance, in Spanish, laughter will be spelt as "jajaja" instead. |
| Keyboard-generated emoticons and smileys | Emoticons are generally found in web forums, instant messengers and online games. They are culture-specific and certain emoticons are only found in some languages but not in others. For example, the Japanese equivalent of emoticons, kaomoji (literally "face marks"), focus on the eyes instead of the mouth as in Western emoticons. They are also meant to be read right-side up, for example, ^_^ as opposed to sideways, =). Most importantly, compared to emoticons in the US, kaomoji play a very distinct social role in online discourse. [9] |
| Direct requests | These are found in chat engines such as Internet Relay Chat or online games, where personal identities may be concealed. As such, questions such as "A/S/L?" which stands for "age, sex, location?" are commonly posed.[10] |
| Leet | [[Leet}], or l33t, is an alternative alphabet for the English language which uses various combinations of ASCII characters to replace Latinate letters. For example, Wikipedia may be expressed as "w1k1p3d14". It originated from computer hacking, but its use has been extended to online gaming as well. |
| Flaming | Flaming refers to the use of rude or profane language in interactions between Internet users.[11] It can be caused by any subject of polarizing nature. For example, there is an ongoing debate between users of Windows and Mac OS. Historically, the act of flaming has been described as an intrinsic quality of emails due to an absence of visual and auditory cues in computer-mediated communication. [12] |
Criticism[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ Hawisher, Gale E. and Cynthia L. Selfe (eds). (2002). Global Literacies and the World-Wide Web. London/New York: Routledge
- ^ http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2814235.stm
- ^ Hohenhaus, Peter. (2002). Standardization, language change, resistance and the question of linguistic threat: 18th-century English and present-day German. In: Linn, Andrew R. and Nicola McLelland (eds.). Standardization - Studies from the Germanic languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory volume 235), 153-178
- ^ http://mitglied.multimania.de/gottfhanninger/redekanal.htm
- ^ David Crystal (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press. pp. 34. ISBN 0-521-80212-1.
- ^ Davis, B.H. & Brewer, J. P. (1997). Electronic discourse: linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- ^ "Don't be 404, know the tech slang". BBC. December 10, 2008.
- ^ Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Katsuno, Hirofumi and Christine R. Yano. 2002. Asian Studies Review 26(2): 205-231
- ^ Thurlow, C. (2001), Language and the Internet, In R, Mesthrie & R, Asher (Eds), The concise encyclopedia of sociolinguistics, London: Pergamon
- ^ Baron, N.S. (2003). Language of the Internet. In A. Farghali (Ed.), The Stanford handbook for language engineers (pp. 59—127). Stanford, California: CSLI
- ^ Lea, Martin, Tim O’Shea, Pat Fung, and Russel Spears. 1992. ‘Flaming’ in Computer-Mediated Communication. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, ed. Martin Lea, 89-112. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.