Welcome back to week two! This past week I looked at what I called the “practical effects of technology” on online language.
The biggest takeaway from this week was that the online world offers a unique context in which to use language because it combines factors from both written and spoken language. This is not to say that the language itself becomes especially unique as a result, but we’ll dig into that more a bit later.
One benefit of the internet is that it contains a multitude of different people who are writing in a variety of settings. Traditionally published writing tends to be found in a limited number of contexts, like books and newspapers. These mediums tend to have more standard and formal varieties of the language (although not always!). Additionally, publishing in these formats is inaccessible for many people. The internet, on the other hand, can be used by anyone with an internet connection and time. As such, it can be used to explore people’s everyday casual and informal language (if we assume that people’s tweets, texts, and emails reflect people’s spoken speech) (McCulloch 5). The other benefit of the internet is that it allows these informal forms of language to be explored outside of a laboratory and research context, which may influence individuals to change their language if they are aware it will be analyzed by other people later.
So, what practical effects does the internet and other technology have on the recording and publishing of written and spoken language? Are there distinct differences between offline and online writing? How do online conversations differ from offline face-to-face conversations?
Let’s jump in.
Writing Online vs. Offline
Writing online is just that – writing. However, online contexts do present some differences from handwritten and traditionally published writing. Offline writing is static and subject to space constraints – the back of a postcard, the space allocated to a newspaper column, and so on (Crystal 17). It tends to be easily categorized as public or private (Jucker 42). Often there is a delay between when something is written and when it is published, and writers need to take that delay into account when considering how a reader might interpret their writing. This delay means writers have the time to read over and edit their work before it is published, often resulting in “the development of careful organization and compact expression, with often intricate sentence structure” (Crystal 18). Traditional writing usually produces coherent and internally consistent pieces, since collaborative work with multiple authors will usually either attribute specific elements of the text to specific authors or will be edited so as to produce a similar style throughout the entire piece.
Digital writing presents some differences to these traits. Articles and posts don’t need to be abbreviated due to the amount of space available, and oftentimes can be edited after they are originally published, either to correct for errors or to update the piece with more relevant information (30). Some digital writing, such as Wikipedia articles, is created by multiple authors over time. Thus, there exist articles and pages which may not be fully internally consistent, as different authors and editors have different ideas of both what content should be included (and what should be emphasized, explained, or glossed over) and what style is appropriate for the piece (uses of narration, figurative language, register, and so on) (31). In other cases, work by a singular author might be difficult to classify as a text at all. For example, tweets on a timeline might not add to a coherent “text” because the content of each one may be totally separate from the next (Jucker 52).
In some regards, however, digital writing retains similarities to traditional writing. In some contexts there is a character limit for posts or texts (58). And asynchronous writing still exists online, so writers of articles and emails do need to account for a delay between when they are written and when they will be read. As in offline publishing, users in these contexts are likely to double check their grammar and spelling before releasing their work into the world. Similarly, emails cannot be edited once they are sent, and many messaging applications also do not allow for edits to be made, maintaining the static nature we see in offline writing. But users may use more ambiguous language in texts or chats, since the rapid back and forth of such a conversation allows for more room for correction or elaboration (43). Meanwhile, when handwriting a letter or writing a newspaper article, you might be more careful to make sure your message was as clear as possible. The delay between writing and reading makes it more difficult to quickly clarify what the author intended to say.
Multiple articles and authors seem to share the sentiment that digital writing (especially texting or messaging features on apps/social media) can be a hybrid medium that includes features we usually associate with spoken language. Speech is spontaneous and quick, often with blurry sentence boundaries. Similarly, texting or direct messages tend to expect a timely response, and make use of sentence fragments (a very common feature in spoken language) rather than sticking solely to complete sentences (Crystal 18, 20). These messages often cannot be edited, so any errors must be corrected in later messages – just like in spoken language.
Some features of spoken language do not translate as easily – for instance, facial expressions and gestures can be indicated, to some extent, by emoji and emoticon, but they certainly are not the same thing (23). Features like intonation, prosody, volume, and tempo are also largely lost. But the largest difference may be the lack of simultaneous feedback. In spoken language, participants in a conversation can shape how a speaker is talking even when it’s not their turn. Facial expression, body language, and filler words can indicate a listener’s comprehension and engagement with a conversation. A confused look might spur the speaker to elaborate, while a bored or irritated look might cause a speaker to trail off or finish their thoughts quickly. This feedback is missing in digital writing because the audience cannot access the writer’s utterance until they send it. So a writer will receive feedback on a previously sent message, but they cannot access feedback on a message they are currently typing (21).
With all of this in mind, David Crystal describes internet language as “writing which has been pulled some way in the direction of speech rather than as speech which has been written down” (21).
Technology and Turn-Taking
Conversations between two or more people are made up of a series of turns. Generally, only one person has the floor at any given time. Through spoken and physical signals, often unintentional, the speaker can cede the floor to another person. In the early days of computers and the internet, how to translate face to face conversations into a digital written context was not immediately obvious. In the early 1970s, the TENEX system used a single text file which both users shared; if you started typing before the other user had finished, your words would overlap with each other (McCulloch 210). Later systems tried using chat boxes; each user had a box and typed all of their turns in this box (211). However, this made it difficult to follow a conversation chronologically, as one had to look between each of the chat boxes to see who had said something new. Today’s upward scrolling chat first appeared in the 1980s. Unlike the TENEX or chat box systems, these scrolling chat systems did not show messages keystroke-by-keystroke, but rather only showed the full message when it was sent by a user.
In face-to-face conversations we have what is called ‘turn monitor’, meaning we hear utterances as they are being constructed (Jenks 79-80). A keystroke-by-keystroke approach to digital writing would give users this turn monitor, but it also poses some issues. We tend to read more quickly than we can type, which could cause irritation as other users waited for someone to finish typing (McCulloch 211). Pauses in typing might indicate that the writer was done typing or that they were trying to decide how to phrase something. Without the body language and tone we can utilize in face-to-face conversations, readers might not be able to tell the difference.
But on the surface, message-by-message chat also seems like it would pose problems. Wouldn’t users be more easily interrupted? Won’t there be issues with ambiguity if there are multiple conversations occurring at once? But in practice these potential problems don’t seem to present much difficulty to users. For one thing, most typed utterances are directly adjacent to the utterance they are related to or responding to (Crystal 25). But when they aren’t, users are often looking for the specific lexical terms or phrasing that would be relevant to their earlier message, so they can recognize that some messages in a chat are not being directed towards them (26-27). Users could also clarify their language to ensure clarity of their message, such as addressing a specific recipient or reintroducing the topic in their text (“I can’t” versus “I can’t come to the party”) (Jenks 84, McCulloch 25).
Furthermore, although the lack of turn monitor might cause some issues for users, texts and chats do offer the advantage of ‘turn recall’ – we are able to scroll back to earlier messages to remember what was said, rather than having to rely on memory as happens in face-to-face conversations (Jenks 79). This allows for more pauses and gaps in chats and allows for multiple conversations to occur at once (85-86).
As a result of these differences, turn-taking in online chats and texts does differ from turn-taking in face-to-face (FTF) conversations. In FTF conversations, turn transitions between individuals tend to occur near the end of someone’s turn rather than after they are done speaking; in online conversations, turn transitions by necessity occur after someone’s turn, since turn monitor isn’t available (80). Hesitation and restarts are used offline to ensure we are not encroaching on someone’s else’s turn, while in the digital realm any hesitation or restarts that occur will not be seen by the other participants, again due to the lack of turn monitor and simultaneous feedback (83). But these differences don’t seem to inhibit the speed and efficiency with which users are able to have conversations via text or direct message.
Sign Language Online
ASL and other signed languages are used online in specific contexts. The largely written format of the internet has for a long time meant sign language users need to use a written language in order to interact with others online. But newer technologies like virtual reality offer a way for speakers of signed languages to have synchronous conversations with each other in sign language. The specific technology involved presents two unique challenges to the language, as explained by TikTok user dillonthecheeseman. The first is that the handheld controllers do not allow for the full range of hand shapes needed to sign or fingerspell. VR users have developed modified fingerspelling signs to overcome this problem. The second issue is that VR does not allow for users to share their facial expressions, which are an important aspect of ASL grammar. Some users have tried using more dramatic body language to replace facial expressions. Since VR is a fairly new technology, we will have to see whether these sorts of modifications change over time or if they will impact offline signing in any way.
Citations
Crystal, David. Internet Linguistics : A Student Guide, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/smith/detail.action?docID=801579.
Dillonthecheeseman. “I’ll you guys what its like signing in Virtual Reality in a later video! #asl #americansignlanguage #signlanguage #virtualreality #vrsignlanguage #interesting.” TikTok, 23 Jul. 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/@dillonthecheeseman/video/7123725161181924654.
Dillonthecheeseman. “Let me know what you guys think! Would you like to see more VR signing? #asl #americansignlanguage #signlanguage #vr #virtualreality #vrsignlanguage #vrsign #vrasl #vrchat.” Tiktok, 14 Aug. 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/@dillonthecheeseman/video/7131668536522493226.
Jenks, Christopher J. “Turn-Taking in Chat Rooms: Texting Versus Talking.” Social Interaction in Second Language Chat Rooms, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2014, pp. 76–94. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g0b2g8.9. Accessed 14 Sept. 2022.
Jucker, A. H., und C. Dürscheid. „The Linguistics of Keyboard-to-Screen Communication: A New Terminological Framework“. Linguistik Online, Bd. 56, Nr. 6, November 2012, doi:10.13092/lo.56.255.
McCulloch, Gretchen. Because Internet : Understanding the New Rules of Language. Riverhead Books, 2019.