Response to Van Kooten

Overall, I think that Van Kooten makes a very good point that if society is not careful, computer mediated language can potentially degrade formal English language--if we allow it to. This youtube video reminded me of something that I read in Delpit's article a few weeks ago. There was a teacher in Alaska who taught two forms of English in her classroom. One language was formal English, and one was the English spoken at that dominantly Native American town. The children knew that their local language slang was acceptable when they were with family, friends, and people from their culture because everyone could understand one another. However, the children were also aware that when they were out in the real world trying to find employment or be accepted into a good college, they would have to use formal English. I think that the same goes for computer mediated language. It is ok to use it when you are emailing or texting family and friends, but when you are sending something like a business email or an email to a professor, you should write it while using formal English.

Netspeak the new Newspeak?

I found VanKooten’s project on language to be hauntingly reminiscent of one of the primary notions in George Orwell’s 1984: the degeneration of language into simple contradictions, such as pleasure and pain, good and bad, cold and hot. There are no other shades of meaning beyond these basic dichotomies of pain and pleasure, good and bad. Orwell calls this Newspeak--Newspeak being the device to drive civilization into a climate of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy means, according to Orwell, not needing to think for oneself (Orwell 53). One example of Newspeak is when Winston, the novel’s main character, is given a task at work: “time 17.3.84 bb speech misreported africa rectify” (38). Here, this means that Big Brother--the totalitarian leader in Orwell’s society--had made a false claim about Africa in his speech for the March 17, 1984 edition of the Times news article, and the article needed to be rectified to accommodate Big Brother’s false prediction. I am going to now observe how many words it took me to write my explanation. The sentence explaining Winston’s task took me about 35 words to describe what needed to be done while Newspeak could describe it in (arguably) seven. That is the power of simplicity.

In VanKooten’s project, she calls the language of the internet Netspeak and Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Her most rash example of how Netspeak has altered the use of language is shockingly similar (but obviously not exact) to Orwell’s Newspeak: “hey man wats up imma meet u @ 4 @ the gym c u then.” There is zero punctuation here and only a few coherent words. This, however, makes sense to us because this is, essentially, the “Newspeak” of our time. But while it can be argued that there is a time and place for writing in this manner, the real issue is when people have a hard time differentiating when such a time is appropriate or not. I am reminded of my Junior Honors English teacher in High School; early in the year, my teacher actually had to address the class that the next time he sees an essay that has any form of what is essentially VanKooten’s Netspeak, he was going to give the essay an automatic Zero for a grade. It is ridiculous that even in Honors English, the students could not differentiate when Netspeak was appropriate. The real problem is, therefore, that while it is acceptable to write in Netspeak under certain circumstances, many people of today do not have the knowledge to understand and to differentiate between formal and informal writing. Netspeak, ultimately, strikes me as eerily similar to Orwell’s Newspeak; they are both a slow degeneration of language.

The "Polluting" of the "Culture of Power"

Crystal VanKooten’s video raises some interesting questions about how CMC is used in standard written English. I mentioned some of my thoughts on this issue in class, but I’ll reiterate and elaborate on them here. I don’t believe CMC is “polluting” anything. It is a form of communication that is readily used in our society. It is not as formal as some forms of English, such as that used in academia, but it is still a form of English with a whole culture surrounding it that shouldn’t be disregarded. From the article we read last week by Lisa Delpit, we learned about the “culture of power.” I believe that one of reasons that CMC is so hotly debated is because it’s not part of this original “culture of power,” but it is slowly gaining power and a strong following that is threatening this “culture of power.” This “culture of power” is threatened because users of CMC don’t always know when CMC is not appropriate. Therefore the people in the “culture of power” feel like they are being overrun and loosing their control on what is right.

Although I feel like CMC should not be disregarded, I am aware that it does have its inappropriate moments. People, especially youth, have not necessarily been taught when CMC is appropriate and when standard written English is needed. Therefore, I feel like instead of getting defensive and saying CMC is “polluting” the language of power, these people should be putting their efforts into educating where it’s appropriate and where it’s not. Like Lisa Delpit says that in order for a person to succeed in the “culture of power,” they need to taught the rules of this culture first.

Way to boil it down.

Ms. Van Kooten does a wonderful job of boiling down a complicated issue. Let me begin by saying that I am one of those who believes that CMC "pollutes" standard written English. I feel that the problem stems from the overuse of this medium. I fear that today's students, who, as Van Kooten's numbers show, spend so much time communicating informally via such mediums, have great difficulty transitioning from informal communication to formal communication, or, put differently, they fail to appreciate the audience with whom they are communicating. For example, in class we have spent some time discussing the need for writers to know their audience; furthermore, Professor Tolar-Burton has pointed out that email communications from students to teachers tends to be an area where students fail to appreciate their audience, I believe that this failure is directly related to how dependent we as a society have become on such forms of communication.

Placing my own beliefs aside, Ms. Van Kooten does a wonderful job of presenting the facts. And the inescapable fact is that internet, email, social networking cites etc. etc. is here to stay. It is here to stay because it is both popular and convenient. Because of the popularity of this medium, it needs to be embraced in the classroom. Teachers will need to teach, not just teach about audience, but also teach proper internet research methods. What I am really trying to say is that Wiki is not research.

I guess my point is Ms. Van Kooten, in just under six minutes, did a nice job of boiling down a complicated issue.

Language and Technology Assignment

Crystal VanKooten, a doctoral student in English and Education at the University of Michigan, has created a You-tube video on the influence of technology on language. Please watch the video (just under six minutes long) and respond on your blog to one or more of the issues Van Kooten raises in her video. I especially like her use of music with the images. Crystal VanKooten received her MA from OSU and then taught high school in Oregon for five years before going on for her doctorate. Remember also to respond to the blog posts of others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Mgxhqfdyg