[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. A linguistic perspective 25speech community: If we are to understand truly how theInternet might shape our language, then it is essential that we seekto understand how different varieties of language are used on theInternet. 32 Chapters 4 8, accordingly, investigate the kind oflanguage used in each of the seven situations described above.Butall seven have certain linguistic properties in common, and theseform the subject-matter of chapters 2 and 3.32Paolillo (1999). 2The medium of NetspeakThe Internet is an electronic, global, and interactive medium, andeach of these properties has consequences for the kind of languagefound there.The most fundamental influence arises out of theelectronic character of the channel.Most obviously, a user s com-municative options are constrained by the nature of the hardwareneeded in order to gain Internet access.Thus, a set of characters ona keyboard determines productive linguistic capacity (the typeof information that can be sent); and the size and configuration ofthe screen determines receptive linguistic capacity (the type ofinformation that can be seen).Both sender and receiver are addi-tionally constrained linguistically by the properties of the Internetsoftware and hardware linking them.There are, accordingly,certain traditional linguistic activities that this medium can fac-ilitate very well, and others that it cannot handle at all.There arealso certain linguistic activities which an electronic medium allowsthat no other medium can achieve.How do users respond to thesenew pressures, and compensate linguistically?It is important to know what the various limitations and fac-ilitations are.A well-established axiom of communication statesthat users should know the strengths as well as the restrictions oftheir chosen medium, in relation to the uses they subject it toand the purposes they have in mind.People have strong expec-tations of the Internet, and established users evidently havestrong feelings about how it should be used to achieve its pur-poses.However, it is not a straightforward relationship.Theevolution of Netspeak illustrates a real tension which existsbetween the nature of the medium and the aims and expectationsof its users.The heart of the matter seems to be its relationship tospoken and written language.Several writers have called Internet26 The medium of Netspeak 27language written speech ;1 and Wired style advises: Write the waypeople talk. 2 The authors of a detailed study of an asynchronouschatgroup, Davis and Brewer, say that electronic discourse iswriting that very often reads as if it were being spoken that is, asif the sender were writing talking.3 But to what extent is it pos-sible to write speech , given a keyboard restricted to the letters ofthe alphabet, numerals, and a sprinkling of other symbols, and amedium which as we shall see disallows some critical featuresof conversational speech?4 Moreover, as the world is composedof many different types of people who talk in many differentways, what kind of speech is it, exactly, that the new style guideswant us to be writing down? The language of geeks (p.18) hashad a strong influence on Netspeak hitherto, its jargon appealingto a relatively young and computer-literate population.But whatwill happen to Netspeak as the user-base broadens, and peoplewith a wider range of language preferences come online? Writethe way people talk sounds sensible enough, until we have toanswer the question: which people?Before we can answer these questions, we need to be clear aboutthe nature of spoken and written language, and of the factorswhich differentiate them factors which have received a greatdeal of attention in linguistics.Table 2.1 is a summary ofthe chief differences, derived from one general source, TheCambridge encylopedia of the English language.5 Speech is typically1For example, Elmer-Dewitt (1994).2In full: Wired style: principles of English usage in the digital age (Hale and Scanlon, 1999).The quotation is part of Principle 5: Capture the colloquial (see p.83 below).3Davis and Brewer (1997: 2).Ferrara, Brunner, and Whittemore (1991) talk of interactive written discourse , and similar locutions can be found, such as textualconversation and electronic dialogue.4The reduced communicative system has been called metacommunicative minimalismby Millard (1996: 147).5Crystal (2003a: 291)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]