Digital Literacy – Destruction or Evolution of English Language?
From the battle of Edington where the Wessex of Alfred the Great fought for the kingdom of England and the survival of the English language in 878 (Hindley, 2006), to Shakespeare’s verse to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, it’s quite a journey. It’s clear that the English language is always evolving. The world is getting smaller, borders are becoming blurred and language is allowing for this. Does it allow for technology though? Is digital literacy simply another chapter in the evolution of the English language? It is obvious that digital literacy has impacted the English language over the last ten years however this paper will focus its discussion on whether that impact has been positive or negative and whether those influences will have a long-term evolutionary impact on the English language.
Throughout history the question of language evolution has been directed at correct usage of words and the evolution of meanings, interpretation and, when deemed irrelevant, the extinction of entire words. Bruce's literary transformations diagram (Bruce, 1998) demonstrates that, from primitive symbol systems to virtual reality, every transformation or evolution in the development of literacy has been driven by a development in technology (Guest 2002). Text messages, as a new technology, however involve the omission of punctuation and capital letters, intentional misspellings, and essentially creating a hodge-podge of letters, symbols and numbers to convey an idea.
While there are those who believe text messaging is negatively impacting the English language, Gibson’s affordance theory offers an alternative perspective. This affordance theory explicates that in any setting the usage of an object is limited only by the affordances given to it by its user (Gibson, 1979). A spoon affords eating. Water affords drinking and bathing, but also drowning (Maybin & Swann, 2006). The affordance theory extends to symbols and words as well. Their use is only limited to the creativity or inventiveness of their user. Gibson’s affordance theory also transcends English and is relative to all languages.
A recent study of text-messaging Hong Kong university students showed a percentage of students mixed the traditional language of Chinese with English words when sending text messages, creating a language they call “Singlish” (no, this word is not in your spell checker). The same study noted that most Hong Kong students found it easier to send a text message in English than in Chinese (Lin, 2005). With this in mind perhaps text messaging is actually lengthening the scope of the English language.
The Dictionary of the Future features a definition of thumb-typing which blames text messages for the possible evolution of “curiously small fingertips” over the next million years, but not the evolution of English language. This dictionary’s definition for texting includes the creation “of new social patterns and habits, as well as new language and lingo, as we struggle to compress our communication to fit into the 26-character limit” (Popcorn and Hanft, 2001). By this definition then, rather than simply evolving or inspiring creativity within the English language, texting is introducing a new language complete with jargon and lingo. The Hong Kong students’ Singlish is a perfect example of this.
Courier Mail journalist, Melanie Christiansen, tells us of a new English syllabus being introduced in Queensland schools. The new syllabus will include digital literacy in addition to the three R's. Leading the charge for digital literacy is Professor McWilliam who says "When a young person writes 'c u l8r', you can either look at it as bad spelling or as an impressive short messaging capacity. In the digital world being able to communicate quickly is essential; sometimes spelling can get in the way." (Christiansen, 2007).
Many disagree, mainly parents, with the decision to include digital literacy in the school syllabus. They believe the existence of digital literacy in the syllabus detracts from the traditional curriculum where the emphasis is on reading and writing using proper sentence structure and correct spelling.
Digital literacy has already had a perceptible impact on the writing skills of many recent university graduates, with an obvious decline in the writing skills of IT graduates in particular. Ben Reeves, president of the Australian Association of Graduate Employers (AAGE) blames this decline on the fact that email and text messages are often the main form of written communication for many recent graduates, especially those in the IT industry (O’Keefe, 2006). An introduction of a course requiring a more formal writing style into the IT syllabus could be the answer for these students.
Linguistics professor Crystal believes text messages have had a positive impact on language and have even contributed to its enhancement. He says text message expressions have done more than just add to constructions of the English language and the roughly 200,000 words in common use today. " They extend the range of the language, the expressiveness... the richness of the language," (Ulaby, 2006).
From the battle of Edington where the Wessex of Alfred the Great fought for the kingdom of England and the survival of the English language in 878 (Hindley, 2006), to Shakespeare’s verse to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, it’s quite a journey. It’s clear that the English language is always evolving. The world is getting smaller, borders are becoming blurred and language is allowing for this. Does it allow for technology though? Is digital literacy simply another chapter in the evolution of the English language? It is obvious that digital literacy has impacted the English language over the last ten years however this paper will focus its discussion on whether that impact has been positive or negative and whether those influences will have a long-term evolutionary impact on the English language.
Throughout history the question of language evolution has been directed at correct usage of words and the evolution of meanings, interpretation and, when deemed irrelevant, the extinction of entire words. Bruce's literary transformations diagram (Bruce, 1998) demonstrates that, from primitive symbol systems to virtual reality, every transformation or evolution in the development of literacy has been driven by a development in technology (Guest 2002). Text messages, as a new technology, however involve the omission of punctuation and capital letters, intentional misspellings, and essentially creating a hodge-podge of letters, symbols and numbers to convey an idea.
While there are those who believe text messaging is negatively impacting the English language, Gibson’s affordance theory offers an alternative perspective. This affordance theory explicates that in any setting the usage of an object is limited only by the affordances given to it by its user (Gibson, 1979). A spoon affords eating. Water affords drinking and bathing, but also drowning (Maybin & Swann, 2006). The affordance theory extends to symbols and words as well. Their use is only limited to the creativity or inventiveness of their user. Gibson’s affordance theory also transcends English and is relative to all languages.
A recent study of text-messaging Hong Kong university students showed a percentage of students mixed the traditional language of Chinese with English words when sending text messages, creating a language they call “Singlish” (no, this word is not in your spell checker). The same study noted that most Hong Kong students found it easier to send a text message in English than in Chinese (Lin, 2005). With this in mind perhaps text messaging is actually lengthening the scope of the English language.
The Dictionary of the Future features a definition of thumb-typing which blames text messages for the possible evolution of “curiously small fingertips” over the next million years, but not the evolution of English language. This dictionary’s definition for texting includes the creation “of new social patterns and habits, as well as new language and lingo, as we struggle to compress our communication to fit into the 26-character limit” (Popcorn and Hanft, 2001). By this definition then, rather than simply evolving or inspiring creativity within the English language, texting is introducing a new language complete with jargon and lingo. The Hong Kong students’ Singlish is a perfect example of this.
Courier Mail journalist, Melanie Christiansen, tells us of a new English syllabus being introduced in Queensland schools. The new syllabus will include digital literacy in addition to the three R's. Leading the charge for digital literacy is Professor McWilliam who says "When a young person writes 'c u l8r', you can either look at it as bad spelling or as an impressive short messaging capacity. In the digital world being able to communicate quickly is essential; sometimes spelling can get in the way." (Christiansen, 2007).
Many disagree, mainly parents, with the decision to include digital literacy in the school syllabus. They believe the existence of digital literacy in the syllabus detracts from the traditional curriculum where the emphasis is on reading and writing using proper sentence structure and correct spelling.
Digital literacy has already had a perceptible impact on the writing skills of many recent university graduates, with an obvious decline in the writing skills of IT graduates in particular. Ben Reeves, president of the Australian Association of Graduate Employers (AAGE) blames this decline on the fact that email and text messages are often the main form of written communication for many recent graduates, especially those in the IT industry (O’Keefe, 2006). An introduction of a course requiring a more formal writing style into the IT syllabus could be the answer for these students.
Linguistics professor Crystal believes text messages have had a positive impact on language and have even contributed to its enhancement. He says text message expressions have done more than just add to constructions of the English language and the roughly 200,000 words in common use today. " They extend the range of the language, the expressiveness... the richness of the language," (Ulaby, 2006).
Among so much debate it seems that digital literacy is not the destruction or the evolution of the English language. While text messaging may be a new technology, instead of transforming or evolving English, I believe it is simply creating a new jargon or slang. Digital literacy fits all the characteristics of slang. “Its rejection of formal rules, its comparative freshness, common ephemerality, and its marked use to claim solidarity”, as well as establishing a person’s social identity (Spolsky, 1998) make it more closely related to slang than formal English.
Digital literacy is here to stay like it or not. Its unobtrusive, quick and easy usage of language has assured its longevity. Whether using complete words or witty abbreviations, it’s difficult to surpass its ability to connect intimately to another person without verbal or body language. Evolution or the creation of a new language – either way it means change and change is the one thing guaranteed to make many uncomfortable. The impact of digital literacy on the future evolution of the English language remains to be seen.
REFERENCES
Bruce, B. (1998, May 6th 2007). "New Literacies." from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/jaal/Sept_Column.html.
Christiansen, M. (2007). Can't spell, can text? gr8 m8! The Courier Mail. Brisbane. March 29th 2007.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Publishers.
Guest, P. (2002, May 4th 2007). "Teaching English in the Digital Age." Literacy transformations, 2007, from http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/centres/sc/guest.htm.
Hindley, G. (2006). A Brief History of The Anglo-Saxons. New York, Carroll & Graf Publishers.
Lin, A. (2005). "Mobile text-messaging among Hong Kong College Students." Fibreculture Retrieved April 25th 2007, from http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_lin.html.
Maybin, J. and J. Swann (2006). The Art of English: Everyday Creativity. Glasgow, UK, Palgrave MacMillan.
O'Keefe, B. (2006). "Gen Y's Written Skills Fall Short." Retrieved April 2007, from http://www.careerone.com.au/jobs/job-search/pid/1630?matrix=1141682488822.
Popcorn, F. and A. Hanft (2001). Dictionary of the FUTURE. New York, Hyperion New York
Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Ulaby, N. (2006). "OMG: IM Slang Is Invading Everyday English." Digital Culture Weekend Edition, Sat Feb 18th 2006. Retrieved 5th May, 2007, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5221618.
No comments:
Post a Comment