WebSpeak: The death of language?

[Labyrinth]

I, and I'm sure many of you as well, am one of those people who you will find picking at the terrible nature of the typed word in most internet chat rooms. "It's an affront!" we say in indignation at the sacrilege around us, and no doubt it is for sure. When 'u' has replaced 'you' due to the sheer laziness of the human being, who cannot say that English is a dying art? Well, I'm here to argue somewhat against that.

But first, this isn't to say that I expect everyone to talk online or in reality as though they are Oxford dons with a dictionary shoved where the sun don't shine, (Irony, yes) that'd be both impractical and impossible. (Not to mention that I myself am a known abuser of many of the codes and conventions I've had pummelled into me during various English courses. *Yawn*) Instead, I suggest a median, to those few who aren't already using proper spelling or punctuation. Talk in a language we all understand, and put in the extra button-press or two necessary to at least type the word out in full.

Sure, in chat rooms and IM conversations online you will find unbelievable use of such abbreviations as make up WebSpeak, but more and more you see people rebuking this. It used to be 'coolz, lol' to speak like that, but now we Language-is-art types are fighting back, and spreading. There is a revolution within the online world. You see spelling corrections, even punctuation where a year or two ago there would have been nothing but rife flaunting of the simple rules of English. It's fantastic in a way, that the underlying linguistic sense is fighting back.

The other factor is that use of WebSpeak is becoming synonymous with 'idiotic n00b' to many of the more experienced users. An inability to express ones opinions in the articulate manner of properly spelled words and coherent sentences has been considered stupidity for quite a while, and generally leads to the ideas being discredited, no matter how worthwhile they may be. In terms of chat room discussion, that is rarely a loss due to the unsubtle lack of mind-stretching conversation, but as online discussion becomes more of a part of global communication, some good ideas are likely to be lost in the depths of WebSpeak and all its dirty little children.

This isn't just a problem for the younger people online, the Pixel Generation so to speak, who have grown up with the Internet and online world shoved in their faces. It's also an issue when it comes to older gamers who first generated WebSpeak as a way of shortening messages and reducing effort. All sorts of people from all sorts of demographics need a kick in the backside in regards to their hacking and burning of language.

So yes, I'd love to hear various opinions on this. Is language dying online or are we clawing it back? What sort of lexicon do you use online? Rant away if you want. Hell, I did.

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

So yes, I'd love to hear various opinions on this. Is language dying online or are we clawing it back? What sort of lexicon do you use online? Rant away if you want. Hell, I did.

Oh, did you ever, so much so that I can't think of anything that you didn't cover in some way.

I will say that, if you're trying to make an argument online, it is much, much harder nowadays, as people now want, no, demand that you have proper spelling, grammar and punctuation, credible sources cited when used, and that you should always have a point, an opinion, something with which they can disagree with and attack with paragraphs worth of text.

Basically, if you're trying to be professional, then play the part and do the work involved to be labeled as such.

An argument made with webspeak, citing Wikipedia and having no point beyond flaming another's opinion is likely to get you into trouble with the mods more than anything, save posting porn sites on PG-13 websites.

 

[Saskwach]

Well forgetting that according to observers throughout history the English language has been going to the dogs (for a good, as well as pretty right, example look up "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell) I really doubt "webspeak" is the greatest enemy of English. I'm much more afraid of an English that prizes the political doublespeak we hear a lot where people don't say what they mean and don't mean what they say (seriously, read that essay. It's good.).
I don't expect or want most of webspeak's words and grammar to catch on but a book I read a few years back- can't remember the name- said that erosion, ie people taking shortcuts in their speech, was one of the main drivers of linguistic change. And without change in a language it becomes stale, old and locked into an archaic way of thinking. I'm not dissin' Shakespeare's English but if it had never changed from then until now we wouldn't have any words for any modern inventions or concepts.
Again, I'm not saying webspeak should catch on, but instead that it probably won't and that its shortcuts and cheats are exactly the sort of changes that keep a language changing and modern.

 

[nagumo [deprecated]]

Can't say I've really run across the issue much. Then again, I tend to visit sites that are more technically oriented, and are populated by well educated and paid professionals or general PC enthusiasts. Sites like Arstechnica and Elite Bastards are my main haunts. Limited? Yes. I'm just not the Facebook or MySpace type, and I never will be.

As to what I prefer in a post, that would be clear and concise wording. If I have to decipher what is written, expect me to ignore it. I won't belittle anyone for typos, after all, we all make them. I will point out words that are consistently spelled incorrectly.

 

[Labyrinth]

Never thought about it before this thread, but more people are composing text than ever before in human history. And beyond just the fact that there are more people, more literacy, etc. For many people who don't write as part of their job they probably wouldn't do much writing at all were it not for the internet.

Maybe that's something to keep in mind when assessing WebSpeak and the English language--many of the people using WebSpeak wouldn't be composing text in English at all if it weren't for the internet.

That's all very well, but most of the people you find in chat rooms these days Do speak fluent English when finally tortured into it. It's the sheer laziness of them that really narks me, like people who sit down at a metal gig, or refuse to have sex due to the strenuous effort involved. Oh, and on that note, good spelling is sexy too.

 

[shadow skill]

Frankly things like "U" and "Y" being substituted for "Why" and "You" respectively make a good bit of sense since the other two letters im those words are dominated by those particular letters. Not to mention the fact that any single letter by itself is indeed a word in it's own right. Most of the people I converse with regularly over the internet, whether they are native English speakers or not, tend to use more "traditional" speech rather than "Webspeak."

As for Webspeak being the province of non-native English speakers I would dispute this based soley on the fact that much of "Webspeak" relies on an underlying knowledge of proper forms in order for the abbreviations used to make sense.

 

[ccesarano]

Teenage girls were writing "Stacy + Emily BFF" in their notebooks well before the Internet. The use of "u" and "r" did not originate in online chat rooms. They've always existed, and primarily with the note passing of teenage girls in their classrooms.

It's just something teenagers do, because for some reason expressing any bit of intelligence is just uncool when you're in high school.


Though I must say, the first time I ever went into a chat room and saw people typing "lol" I was confused as Hell.

 

[Arbre]

Do you game?

*sigh*

No, I sofa. Fucker.

 

[Chilango2]

In a larger sense, no, webspeak is not the death of language, but rather the changing of a language to reflect a new medium. Not all of its current peculiarities will translate to the every day, of course, but still. And as other posters have pointed out, the informal and ungrammatical use of language is old, old, old news, with the latest form of communication invariably used as a scapegoat. To be clear, said form of communication does usually have something to do with it, but the result tends to be a fuller language, if one that has tended to be less formal (if no less precise..) that its predecessor.

 

[innocent42]

You see spelling corrections, even punctuation where a year or two ago there would have been nothing but rife flaunting of the simple rules of English. It's fantastic in a way, that the underlying linguistic sense is fighting back.

I am unable to take you seriously.

 

[sergeantz]

Taking into consideration the point that webspeak is changing rather than killing the english language: Is all change good? Almost every time I see this stuff, it appears to be not only a shortcut for words, but a shortcut for thinking as well. Instead of having a thought-out dialogue with someone who disagrees with them, they just Ctrl+V "your gay, STFU n00b" out of their brains and call it a day.

So while I can understand the point of view that webspeak is just a form of change, I can't say that it's a good thing.

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

Taking into consideration the point that webspeak is changing rather than killing the english language: Is all change good? Almost every time I see this stuff, it appears to be not only a shortcut for words, but a shortcut for thinking as well. Instead of having a thought-out dialogue with someone who disagrees with them, they just Ctrl+V "your gay, STFU n00b" out of their brains and call it a day.

So while I can understand the point of view that webspeak is just a form of change, I can't say that it's a good thing.

Well, maybe it's just the forums I go to, but most anyone who posts something like that would most often have it marked and deleted soon afterwards.

In fact, those kind of people are usually not actively participating, anyway, they probably just drifted in, said what was on the top of their head, and left, contributing nothing to the community at large and soon forgotten when they leave.

Like I said, maybe it's just the forums I go to, but professionalism is rather highly valued, and people who don't take the time and effort needed to appear as such are often dismissed as "trolls" and usually ignored by the general populace.

 

[The_Alkaline [deprecated]]

Let me ask you to think in a different way about this situation.

Think of a community of people who use language. For simplicity, make this community relatively small, geographically close, and English speaking. Let's say that this community is some kind of an abomination. In all of their casual gossip, when what they're saying isn't as important as the social bond the sharing of this information brings, this community uses as certain rule. When usin' the present participle in a sentence, they drop the g off of the -ing.

So now let's bring out the questions. Are we killing the English language? Are we being lazy? Is this the first step on a slippery slope of events leading to a linguistic cataclysm?
I say that if this community of g-droppers bothers you you payed too much attention to your high school English teacher. This is what happens in language, folks. Things get broken down. Saskwach was pretty close, in my opinion, when he said that erosion was the main mover in language. I reject the part about staying current because you're getting into difficulties associated with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but it's a good pick for an engine behind language change. Things are also metaphorically built up--in an abstract and literal way. This process is much harder to grasp because it's harder to see. I'll spare you details, because it gets dry and exhaustive. Although Saskwach's force is easier to pique, both forces are equally powerful.

Where does this fit in with Webspeak? Let me oversimplify webspeak a moment, like I did with certain English dialects above. Say when it all began their rule was whenever you have an e, replace with 3. Is this easily-defined erosion as seen above? In my opinion, no. I think this would be like if we started taking all the -en past participle morphemes and replaced them with -ed morphemes (A morpheme is the smallest unit of language that carries meaning.). All I see here is just a linguistic feature to distinguish a community, like our folks up top.

How would I let you prove me wrong? Well, if this decay only lead to a stagnation of linguistic development. Language isn't some rigid thing, it's a self-replicating, dynamic process. If you can't use these rules as a place to start for more rules, then we are in trouble. After webspeak is done converting e into 3, maybe they start converting all their s into 5. Sounds crazy to me, too. How about in the first community because all these words are ending in the in sound, they don't want to repeat the sound when they use the preposition in. (ex. Sitting in chair => Sittin' chair) Have we deteriorated? Well, I would say that decision is arbitrary, but now you're talking semantics.

I apologize for writing a long post. I had not the time to write a shorter one.
And trust me, I'd love to address more.

 

[Unholykrumpet]

Truthfully, I have mixed feelings about Webspeak. In one sense, nothing infuriates me more than a person posting a huge theory/thought process about an item of importance, and half of the post ends up being jibberish/webspeak. If you are contributing an intelligent thought, please use the "you" instead of "u", and various other webspeak substitutions. If, however, you are talking to your "bff" jill, and the conversation is only read between you and her, then by all means, go for it. Slaughter the english language to "ur <3s cont3nt". Taking notes by hand or on a computer is also an ideal time to use webspeak.

Personally, I use a mixture of mathematical, french, english, and webspeak in my notes, to the point that a normal humanoid would cry if forced to read it. For example, "The boy,girl threw red(balls, toys) 2 le homme standing solo sur la right" means "The boy and girl threw red balls and red toys to the gentleman standing alone on the right". My notes have clearly destroyed the very foundations that comprise language in general, but that is fine because in general, only I will read those notes in the first place. However, if I posted a forum post defending abortion and said "it makes me lol that u think abortion is a sin bcuz u all sin ne way so who cares?", the use of webspeak or written shortcuts would damage my credability. In short, use good judgment when choosing to put or refrain from putting webspeak in your text.

 

[Unholykrumpet]

Sorry for the double post, but what do you guys think about having a small amount of webspeak for style purposes? Personally, I enjoy a few word changes to define a person's text with. I use prolly instead of probably, and sometimes say "heart" instead of love, but that's a conscious decision I make. Does that make my writing unacademic and uneducated, or is that a glimpse of humor and style?

 

[Saskwach]

Taking into consideration the point that webspeak is changing rather than killing the english language: Is all change good? Almost every time I see this stuff, it appears to be not only a shortcut for words, but a shortcut for thinking as well. Instead of having a thought-out dialogue with someone who disagrees with them, they just Ctrl+V "your gay, STFU n00b" out of their brains and call it a day.

So while I can understand the point of view that webspeak is just a form of change, I can't say that it's a good thing.

Like the essay I suggested says, people often use complex and proper English to avoid thinking as well. Here's an extract:
"As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious."
Now if I'd just replaced the "unjustifiable assumption" part with say "IMO" the anti-webspeak crowd would be nodding sagely. I've just now seen that Orwell and want the same thing: sloppy writers to think before writing. They just have different targets. The point is though that "proper" writing can be sloppy too and might also be hurting the language. And webspeak isn't the language politicians speak so I'd say it isn't the greater monster.
Oh, and because Orwell was probably wrong about what forces change language but it's still a great essay.

I say that if this community of g-droppers bothers you you payed too much attention to your high school English teacher. This is what happens in language, folks. Things get broken down. Saskwach was pretty close, in my opinion, when he said that erosion was the main mover in language. I reject the part about staying current because you're getting into difficulties associated with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but it's a good pick for an engine behind language change. Things are also metaphorically built up--in an abstract and literal way. This process is much harder to grasp because it's harder to see. I'll spare you details, because it gets dry and exhaustive. Although Saskwach's force is easier to pique, both forces are equally powerful.

You got me. I simplified it a bit too much. I thought it'd be easier to be brief. And the "current" stuff was a bad word for what I was trying to express.
Also, the second last line of your post. Twain? I might remember being told he said that but I'm curious and unsure. And it made me smile.

 

[sergeantz]

That essay sounds like it might be worth a read. In addition, George Bernard Shaw wrote an essay that stated that English is such a hodgepodge of languages that it has no readily definable conventions; he asserts that "proper english" is itself an oxymoron.