#newmediacommunication

[kcb206group15]

To Netspeak or not to Netspeak, that is the question.

I really enjoyed the content of this week’s topic; new media communication. This is probably due to my being immersed in new media almost every day so I was able to understand and relate really well to the topic.

Computer mediated communication particularly interested and was relevant to me. Even as I’ve grown up I’ve noticed a shift from real, face-to-face communication to computer mediated communication or, ‘Netspeak’ as coined by Crystal (2001; 2006). The existence of the many advantages and disadvantages of this shift I found quite confronting. While I would agree that Netspeak is less intimate and has certainly eroded spoken and written language (Sauter, 2014), as a regular Netspeaker, I would like to think that it doesn’t necessarily have to be shallow or reclusive. In regards to Baym’s stance on ‘a formulaic tendency to think about media in ranked order and to position the one that seems to offer the widest range of verbal and nonverbal social cues on top and the one seeming to offer the least on the bottom’ (2010, 51) I would argue that like new media audiences, new media communication is not necessarily a one way channel. Used in conjunction with face-to-face communication, the enhancements of computer mediated communication can override its potential impoverishments. For example, I interact with my friends and family enough face-to-face that when I interact with them via new media, it simply adds another dimension to interaction rather than encouraging shallow, untrustworthy or inadequate interactions (Baym 2010, 51). In saying this, if used in isolation, computer mediated communication can certainly negatively affect traditional norms and benefits of interaction.

This week as we looked at different forms of interaction and language such as emjoi’s and emoticons, it caused me to stumble upon a new form of social media currently booming in Asian culture called ‘Line’. On a trip to Thailand recently I first noticed many restaurants offering free use of Line at their venues so it got me very curious. Upon further investigation, I found that it is a relatively new app for smartphones that launched in Japan in 2011 (Akimoto, 2012). Over 45 million people now use Line frequently and it is predominantly used to send messages and make free calls. One of the most popular features of Line is its emoticons. Many users communicate purely through the vast variety of ‘stickers’ and other advanced emoticons.  This really intrigued me as it exemplified the shift discussed in this week’s content in how we interact and communicate today.

  (pictured: some of the extensive range of emoji's offered by Line. Image retrieved from Google images) 

References:

Akimoto, A. 2012. Japan’s Line Social Network could Challenge Global Competitors. Japan Times. Retrieved from: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2012/07/18/digital/japans-line-social-network-could-challenge-global-competitors/

Sauter, T. 2014. KCB206 Internet Self and Beyond. Week 6 Lecture Notes. Retrieved from: http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232449_1

[kcb206group4]

New Media Communication: Impoverishment or Enrichment

The development of new media platforms and mediated communication has facilitated an ever growing number of avenues to “communicate information across time and space.” (Sauter, 2014) Anyone with a computer or smart phone is now able to engage in creative new ways of communicating with the world, each other and themselves. However, a question constantly looming over these technologies, and one that I often debate is whether these affordances have enriched or impoverished traditional communication. Although, in my opinion the obvious answer seems to be that it’s impoverishing communication, this week’s content caused me to challenge this.

One result of mediated communication is what could be seen as the dumbing down of language into a more limited and less expressive style. This is what Crystal refers to as “Netspeak.” (Crystal 2006) In a reference to “Newspeak” from George Orwell’s 1984, Netspeak could be seen as limiting language to a narrow and inarticulate means of communication, to the point where a message’s true intention often can’t be conveyed. Consequently, communication is impoverished. It becomes shallow, interactions can become inadequate and identities and relationships are compromised. (Baym 2010, 51) Essentially, it hinders the “crucial parts of interpersonal relationships.” (Sauter, 2014) Moreover, it becomes fragmented. New media platforms like Twitter, where character number is limited, can cause a fragmentation and dilution of an intended message. If an entire message can’t be conveyed it becomes simplified often resulting in the fragmentation and loss of the intended message. Therefore, it can be seen that the dumbing down, fragmentation and often limiting nature of new media communication has served to impoverish traditional communication.

However, this week caused me to realise that the question is not as simple as whether or not new media communication has been detrimental or not to traditional communication. There are many factors that can be relevant to deciding if communication has been impoverished or enriched such the users familiarity with technology or the type and strength of offline relationships. (Sauter, 2014) However, what I believe to be the most significant determining factor is the context in which the online communication is occurring. As context is “an essential component of communicative possibilities and constraints,“ (Baym 2010, 50) I feel it’s the most important factor for determining if communication has been impoverished or enriched. For example, in the context of people living on the other side of the world from each other who can’t have a face to face relationship, new media communication is incredible enriching. Whereas, for people who can have a traditional relationship, but favour new media communication, the relationship may suffer from fragmentation and limits imposed on expression and meaning.

While the limits that can be placed on new media communication, may easily lead to the conclusion that it has been impoverished, it is a far broader question requiring many considerations. I believe that it’s wholly based on the context in which the communication takes place and without considering this it’s impossible to determine if it has has been impoverished or enriched.

  Reference List

  Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K,Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Crystal, David, (2006). Chapter 2 : The Medium of Netspeak. In Crystal, David, Language and the internet, (pp.26 - 65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

  Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

  Sauter, Teresa L. KCB 206 Internet, Self & Beyond: Week 6 lecture. Accessed April 11, 2014. https://lecturecapture.qut.edu.au/ess/echo/presentation/32a2baa5-0962-48d2-9881-11fddd0c5f21?ec=true

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup8]

New Media Communication - Carly Ryan

New media’s communication technologies have created different means of interacting with society, individuals and self. They have become domesticated; they are integrated into our lives and more and more individuals are “always on,” continually connected through networks. The effects these technologies have had on how individuals share material and communicate are evident; prosumers are using abbreviations and emoticons to simplify and enhance messages. Termed ‘netspeak’ by Crystal (2006), computer-mediated communication is a contentious topic, and whether it has diminished, or bettered language, communication and relationships is something to consider.

Netspeak tends to be informal, casual and amendable; letters are omitted, words are misspelt, grammar is deemed irrelevant and punctuation is scarce. Justifiably, questions of whether netspeak is undermining literacy skills are raised. One in particular is, are individuals forgetting the “rules for word construction and sentence mechanics” (Baron 2008, 7), or is it that they simply do not care? Baron (2008, 7) argues “the sheer amount of text that literate Americans produce is diminishing our sense of written craftsmanship,” but does this even matter?

 Alternatively, the way individuals use computer-mediated communication can be viewed as innovative—prosumers are creating new ways of engaging and communicating. Baym (2010, 59) states individuals “appropriate media characteristics as resources to pursue social and relational goals.” Moreover, individuals show “immediacy” online through activities that focus on relationships and limit emotional detachment (Baym 2010, 61). With Twitter capping tweets at 140 characters, messages and thoughts have to be expressed succinctly. Users commonly use minimalistic methods like abbreviations and fragments to condense their messages. This minimalism is used so frequently that it has translated over into everyday life, something that was illustrated in 2010 when ‘BFF,’ ‘LMAO’ and ‘TTYL’ were added into the lexicon of the Oxford American Dictionary (Oxford University Press).

Emoticons are another result of computer-mediated communication. The issue with written communication is that individuals can interpret messages in different, sometimes unintended ways; the use of emoticons rectifies this. Crystal (2006, 41) identifies how emoticons can have “pragmatic force”—individuals use them to indicate how messages should be translated. Used regularly in tweets, iMessages, emails and more, they have become entwined with every day media communication. Emoticons began as simple combinations of keyboard characters like ‘:-)’ and are now, given their popularity, graphics and ‘Emojis’ of almost everything, from foods to animals and wide variety faces.

How individuals appropriate emoticons, abbreviations and other devices to align with social norms shapes their self. Baym (2010, 62) highlights, “as people appropriate the possibilities of textual media to convey social cues, create immediacy, entertain, and show off… they build identities for themselves, build interpersonal relationships, and create social contexts.”

New media and its technologies have changed the way people communicate; it is increasingly more common for people to be “always on,” always connected. While it is questionable if netspeak is weakening literacy skills, it has become the social norm. New communication methods assist, and computer-mediated communication methods assist in shaping individuals sense of self and devices like abbreviations and emoticons show prosumer innovation.

References Baron, Naomi. 2008. “Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press.

Crystal, David. 2006. “The Medium of Netspeak.” In Language and the Internet. 2nd ed., 26-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford University Press. 2010. “My BFF just told me “TTYL” is in the dictionary. LMAO.” OUPblog, September 16. Accessed April 12, 2014. http://blog.oup.com/2010/09/noad3/

[qutkcb2062014tutorialgroup5]

New Media and Communication

There is a common belief about how ‘internet communication is so impersonal’ (baym 2010, 3), ‘it’s making us scattered and superficial thinkers’ (Carr, 2010) and ‘writing online is making us worse writers’ (Baron 2008, 6) But how accurate are these accusations? According to Baym, many of the previous studies done on this topic are flawed. I’ll be first to admit that while I prefer face-to-face conversation for certain situations, I’m definitely pro instant messaging when it comes to daily life.  Given the domestication of technology, we are ‘always on’ so communicating becomes so much more convenient and effortless. Especially when it comes to maintaining communication around the globe. For example, my brother is overseas for the next 6 months, and I’m still able to talk to him daily on Facebook chat as if he’d never even left.

However, I understand where these worries are coming from. When we communicate face to face we send out non-verbal cues such as facial expressions or body language. These actions we see usually reflect what is being said and help us in understanding the conversation. ‘Because computer-mediated interact ants are unable to see, hear, and feel one another, they can’t use the usual cues conveyed by appearance, signals and physical context’ (Baym 2010, 54) so when we read a message online, we aren’t getting it’s full meaning. Which is why emoticons are used to help solve this problem (Baym 2010, 60). A written message can come across as abrupt or rude, however if you put a little ‘J’ emoticon in it, the message changes to a friendly and casual tone.

One of the main concerns that Baron raises in her reading is that because writing an instant message is so easy and quick now, it raises the issue of ‘what affect quantity may be having upon quality’ (Baron 2008, 6) for example, while we’re able to write out a proper sentence asking ‘what are you doing tomorrow?’, for the sake of effort, this message becomes ‘wat r u doin 2moz?’. While this might come across as being written by someone who skipped primary school, in many cases it’s more likely that ‘we could proof read… but no longer care to do so’ (baron 2008, 7). The use of IM talk can also be seen creeping into daily spoken communication. Such acronyms as 'LOL' and 'JK' are used in certain demographics general conversations.

While it may seem as though the use of virtual communication is dumbing down society and detaching people in conversations, contemporary attitudes and practices are in fact also ‘shaped by larger social forces we have incorporated into our own identities and carry with us into our mediated interactions’ (Baym 2010, 66) the devices we use such as computers and mobiles merely ‘magnify on going trends’ (Baym 2010, 65)

References

Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed April 10, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K, Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press. Accessed April 10, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Carr, Nicholas. 2010. “How the internet is making us stupid” The Telegraph, August 27. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/7967894/How-the-Internet-is-making-us-stupid.html