Word Nerd

As a college graduate with a bachelor's degree in English from a reputable university, I like to imagine that my mind is a passionate tumult of well-primed thought. As a matter of practicality, however, my accredited education has prepared me, at best, to coax readers into reading words that I conjure, or, at worst, to serve them delicious caffeinated beverages. For the sake of sanity and pride I have put my mind and efforts to achieving the former and sympathizing with those relegated to the latter. There but for the grace of whichever deity has been watching over my ass, go I. To that end I think about language as a matter of course, partly because, despite evidence to the contrary, I want to write interesting and engaging articles, and even more partly because I'm a big, ol', honkin', English nerd.

As an extension of that, I find myself fascinated at the sociolectical multilingualism that has evolved in the language of discourse in online communities. What, precisely the hell I think I mean by sociolectical multilingualism is a question that I assure you would be no easier to solve were you a doctoral candidate in linguistics at an Ivy League college; it's the kind of nonsense, pretentious, pseudo-scholarly thing amateur hacks like to say to sound smart because they have no formal training. I make no illusions about my season ticket to the peanut gallery, but allow me to try and explain.

For two years now I have become increasingly obsessed with the manifestation of language as personally demonstrated by my own son's cat-terrorizing, bull-stubborn, age-frustrated toddler's mind. Watching him try to extract comprehension from the jumble of phonemes we slap together haphazardly into meanings such as 'don't drink the liquid soap' or 'that's why we tell you not to put your hands in your diaper' is a bittersweet comedy matched only by his own fumbling attempts to create meanings with language. And, I participate with rapturous enthusiasm.

"Did you see how he just correctly added a direct object after that transitive verb?" I say.

"Actually, sir, I did. He has lovely diction. Now, did you want that latte venti sized?"

This linguistic interest, if one were to so blatantly abuse the word, has bled over into what may be an even less interesting curiosity at the development (and by development in this case I mean abuse) of language in very general terms across the panoply of virtual communities.

It is an academic pursuit of a kind, if entirely without academic credential. Perhaps it is borne of nostalgia at the memory of days spent in hot classrooms oozing with the stink of used books, Dr. Pepper, clove cigarettes, and, because we are talking about a liberal arts education, patchouli. I would sit in uncomfortable chairs designed by sociopaths with an intense lumbar hatred, wary of the interminable persecution of wasps and yellow-jackets which spent their spare time between molesting half-full cans of sugary-caffeine-delivery drinks, gazing murderous intent at me through multi-faceted eyes -- such is the life and paranoia of the severe allergy sufferer -- while listening to long lectures on Chaucer's Middle English, or the etymological development of our language from its Indo-European heritage. I suppose mine is not a particularly rose-colored fuzzy memory, but I miss the discussion, and outside of my occasional excursions to buy coffee I have no one with whom to explore the topic.

Which is a shame, because I think the increasingly common "language" of the virtual community, and their shared quirks, defies much of the common linguistics nomenclature, and it should be a fascinating exploration for those so inclined.

At first I considered that the unusual traits of internet language were as ordinary as jargon, though technically jargon is an oral phenomenon, and to be fair I think any linguist worth his weight in salt would dismiss some kind of internet speak as something very much like that. I, fortunately, am an amateur linguist only worth my weight in talcum powder, so I am free to dismiss such learned and scholarly response with a wave of my bachelor-degree empowered hand. After all, those pompous asses can't drop a grade on me anymore!

Internet forum speak is jargonesque (not actually a word!) in that it primarily employs a kind of shorthand familiar to those within the group, and identifies members of that group by the demonstrable ability to speak the jargon. But I am not simply talking about a World of Warcraft player imploring in-game that he is 'LFG in BRD for MC attunement', which really is a jargon within a specific online community, and seems, to the uninitiated, like it might just as well be spy lingo for, "the nuclear detonator is in my colon".

I am discussing alterations to the language across a broader spectrum, including but not limited to patterns of discourse, unique words and phrases that are more than acronyms or terminology, and even accepted styles. I won't go so far as to call it any kind of formal language, though it seems like a kind of sociolect to me, if anything. It's as though there is, for the internet, a kind of accent that develops, except instead of being a regional or spoken "dialect" it is only a phenomenon of the written word, and not defined by a region. In fact, by the global nature of the internet it is multilingual.

Hence, multilingual sociolect! Ta da! I can go stick my head in a bucket of water now if you like.

In fact, I'm not entirely alone in thinking that the "language" of the internet is a notable linguistic phenomenon, though the popularly held belief is that the nature of online discourse is actually damaging the integrity of the language, not that it is developing in its own organic fashion to become something impressive and distinct. It's not a new fear either, as the telegraph, telephone, and, that perennial telepariah (also not a word!), television, were also held to be a danger to the fragile eggshell of our virgin and modest language. But at least there is some recognition that language and the internet have some kind of casual relationship.

The thrust of what I'm saying is this: If you tasked a natural speaker of English, one unfamiliar with the subtleties of online conversation, and asked them to communicate in an established virtual community, it is likely that they would stand out by virtue of their language usage, though not because of their ability or inability to use a jargon, or acronyms, or emoticons, but because their forms, patterns, and styles of speech would not match the sociolectic norms of the virtual community. The interesting thing is, however, that if you put the same groups of people, and your same test subject, into an oral setting, then the abnormalities in common speech should be far less likely.

It's not accurate to say that Internet Speak, for lack of a better or formalized term, is anything close to its own language, nor is it a creole, pidgin, or even quite a jargon. What precisely it is remains a fascinating question, and I am no more satisfied in calling it a sociolect than I am in drinking turkey gravy as a thirst quencher. While I concern myself largely with English, the multilingual global nature of the internet shows an effect across geopolitical, regional, and linguistic boundaries, and yet the phenomenon doesn't seem to be widely studied, despite the hundreds of millions of people who seem to know and understand the subtle shifts required to communicate effectively and naturally online. Even the rules themselves are organic, lack formality, often seem random and mutable, and defy classification, but it seems undeniable that there is some force at work.

No wonder the rigidity of academia seems to be either mystified or pretending the phenomena doesn't exist.

- Elysium

Comments

You know I never went back to college because the only degree I am interested in is English. It always seemed like any degree with classes that interesting would be of almost no use to me at the end of my term.

Anyway, I wonder sometimes if the internet and email haven't influenced some of the media outside of itself already. Perhaps we have heard your Internet Speak, spoken out, without even knowing.

A few shows come to mind like Family Guy, Arrested Development, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, American Dad, maybe even reaching as far back as Sports Night. Think about the flow of speech in the Simpsons. There is a nice rise and fall to the language, a melody to the jokes, comedic timing that is tangible. Compare this to the speech in Family Guy. There is a harsh staccato of phrases practically machine gunned at the viewer. The jokes are obscure references that are introduced, delivered, and passed on in seconds. The show pushes maximum density for number of words spoken per minute and the action is usually jarring and violent and funnier more to do with the shock than the nature of the action, which sounds a hell of a lot like the internet.

Maybe I'm just seeing one phenomenon and thinking of another but the longer we stroll into the age of the internet, the more it feels like someone has tried to incorporate a funny email into a script.

Interesting writeup, Elysium. As you point out, the nebulus nature of the phenomena we're talking of here is what makes it difficult to identify. As a subtle form of dialect, it's safe to say it entails everything from word choice, to grammatical patterns, to the existance of set phrases / responses that only see use in the context of online communities.

It might be best to try breaking down the greater "problem" into smaller pieces for further scrutiny.

dude wtf u guys r teh ghey m I rite?!? OMFG lolz

But really, very interesting article. The phenomenon of internet language something I've often pondered, usually immediately after after I've said something like "woot" or "poaned" or in common conversation and no one understands what the hell I'm talking about. I look forward to reading your future musings on the topic.

I find myself fascinated at the sociolectical multilingualism ... it's the kind of nonsense, pretentious, pseudo-scholarly thing amateur hacks like to say to sound smart because they have no formal training.

It's like you were reading my mind as I read your article. Not that I would call you an amateur hack, per se...

I'd say that the internet is an extreme example of the availability of written media lowering the standard of the written language. When materials on which to write were hard to come by, it was those with a knowledge of how to structure language in print that made the effort to access such media. With the rise of computers and, more specifically, the internet, a larger cross section of society than ever before has easy, fast access to written media. Thankfully, this mostly just amounts to a whole lot of note passing, and no direct changes to the English language. Even those who use "OMFG!!1! U RoXors!!" are unlikely to consider an article formal or informative if it were comprised entirely of such things.

Still, the first time I heard someone say something sarcastic, and then literally say, "don't worry, I'm just jay kay" I almost fell over.

You totally misspleed 'braoder'.

But you're writing is gooder.

Mmmmmmm... turkey gravy.

Elysium wrote:

LFG in BRD for MC attunement

I fell asleep during the middle of that filibuster.

Elsyium wrote:

lfg brd mc attune

There we go. That's something that grabs my attention and keeps me conscious. I don't need to read what your grouping "in" and what "for." I can figure that out on my own, much the same way that I can figure out that "the in-famous El Guapo" means he's more than famous.

Elysium, great article. I wonder how much attention this subject's getting within academia's hallowed halls and ivory towers. As an emergent, rapidly evolving form of mass communication, it'd certainly be a fascinating area of study.

Now, if you could tackle the Swedish Chef's use of pig latin in your next installment, that'd be excellent.

...it is likely that they would stand out by virtue of their language usage, though not because of their ability or inability to use a jargon, or acronyms, or emoticons, but because their forms, patterns, and styles of speech would not match the sociolectic norms of the virtual community.

That's exactly the logic I used when debunking a bit of viral marketing that's making the rounds currently. The syntax, style and pattern of the text was wrong for the presumed writer, but read, instead, like something from a marketing committee. And it's one of those things that's almost impossible to describe, but you know it when you see it. (Sort of like pr0n, I guess. Hee.)

Podunk wrote:

The phenomenon of internet language something I've often pondered, usually immediately after after I've said something like "woot" or "poaned" or in common conversation and no one understands what the hell I'm talking about.

I'm so glad it's not only me who does that.

I always take comfort in the fact that I may let 'woot' slip every once in a while, but I know a bigger dork who says 'woot-zor'

hmm..I don't think 'w00t' et. al. are exactly the subject of elysium's interest... those qualify more as the 'jargon' which, in the end, one could quickly google and then sneakily employ, thus donning the mantle of the l33t.

I think he's after something more ephemeral. he likened it to a textual cadence. a certain scriptural way of carrying onself. and i'm not exactly sure what he's talking about!

but, since i also bear The Mark of an english degree, along with the added serif of an even more useless Master of Arts, allow me to ponder 'aloud':

as the written medium has become more accessible, the same entropy that effects speech has begun to effect the written word. I know that personally, this is most evident in the fact that I am more comfortable expressing quick thoughts and useless ideas in writing, rather than speech. and that said writing is not at all the kind of writing I would produce were I 'writing'. and it certainly does seem to be a bona fide 'phenomenon', but i'm not sure that it is consistent enough to allow itself to be actually studied...

here's what I mean: dialects have strong physical correlations. They can be directly related to a map of the mouth and tongue, describing, for example, where the tongue gets lazy and falls when it should rise, or where it gets excited and pokes out from the teeth, rather than resolutely tapping them. but the written word (and more importantly, the typed word) has less real physical manifestations which it can be mapped against. certainly all the jargon that elysium discounts can be tied to the fact of a keyboard, and the relative mastery of same that some pre-teen wielded in a long forgotten flame-war (ie, the number 1 showing up in a string of exclamation marks). but the carriage of typed online interaction...i think it is more ephemeral. I think it _is_ different than speech. but not in an empirically definable way.

perhaps the online-aggravated entropy of the written word is pulling it closer to the cadence of human thought? after all, I can hold a conversation with 12 people at once on a message-board, whereas in 'real life' I have trouble with more than a single interlocutor. I lose myself in large groups of real people, whereas I find myself online.

Is that what you're talking about?

but the carriage of typed online interaction...i think it is more ephemeral. I think it _is_ different than speech. but not in an empirically definable way.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

perhaps the online-aggravated entropy of the written word is pulling it closer to the cadence of human thought?

Interesting. Actually it would explain a bit the symbology and constant degrading of full context into smaller packets. We don't, after all, think in words, but ideas, and perhaps the online conversations strive to reach some end more similar to that concept.

Where everyday usage of the spoken usage has caused deviation due to laziness, I think there is also some deviation towards those phrases which "sound good" and away from those that do not, grammatically correct though they may be. It seems that each cause has a similiar effect within the written word now that technology has brought it to everyday usage. The 'lite speech is a direct result of laziness and easy to spot, but there is also a new, grammatically correct bias towards phrases that "look good."

I'm not sure if this is a global phenomenon, but I see it in my own writing. Along with the affinity for phrases that are good to look at I also avoid the use of the semicolon wherever I can, but that is a result of childhood trauma.

I too have an English Literature degree. I'm not sure where it is, but I do have one.

I took a few linguistics classes too and there was always a lot of interest in online interaction. My professor's TA dismissed it saying it was pure laziness, but I think there is a measure of creativity in it too. Taking something that came about due to a typo or pure laziness and turning it into everyday useage that has meaning to people, that's pretty interesting to me.

Podunk wrote:
The phenomenon of internet language something I've often pondered, usually immediately after after I've said something like "woot" or "poaned" or in common conversation and no one understands what the hell I'm talking about.
I'm so glad it's not only me who does that.

Me to Duckideva, me too.

Internet communities - indeed any community - create two things: a value based trust system, and an identity system. OK, now I'm getting into sociology.

Individuals are given their identities by the community. So here at GWJ, you get a handle, but you don't truly establish an identity until you participate. This act of participation creates a trust relationship. I have some level of assumptions I can make about Certis because I have a string of interactions I have witnessed. Trust doesn't necessarily mean "lots of" it can mean "none" as well, but I create an opinion of my trust in him based on how he reflects the values the community is built around.

It's in these corners where this stuff lies. The language is a result of the value/trust and identity establishment systems, not the other way around.

Did I lose everyone? I've spent all week thinking about this stuff for work, so my brain is pretty shot.

Perversion of the english language takes many forms. Take, for instance, one Col. Robert R. McCormack, patron saint of the great and mighty Chicago Tribune. He sought to "properly" abbreviate the english language solely because, some detractors would say, to a) help immigrants read and, therefore, buy the paper, and b) make the paper shorter and CHEAPER to print.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=IS...

rabbit wrote:

Internet communities - indeed any community - create two things: a value based trust system, and an identity system. OK, now I'm getting into sociology.

Individuals are given their identities by the community. So here at GWJ, you get a handle, but you don't truly establish an identity until you participate. This act of participation creates a trust relationship. I have some level of assumptions I can make about Certis because I have a string of interactions I have witnessed. Trust doesn't necessarily mean "lots of" it can mean "none" as well, but I create an opinion of my trust in him based on how he reflects the values the community is built around.

It's in these corners where this stuff lies. The language is a result of the value/trust and identity establishment systems, not the other way around.

Did I lose everyone? I've spent all week thinking about this stuff for work, so my brain is pretty shot.

I follow you, and agree at least on the points you're speaking on. This is most evident when comparing a sample of a comunity board such as GWJ with a more "public" forum such, say, the offical WoW boards. A significantly different community produces significant differences in communication.

However, I think Danjo and Chiggie (and dasmo) hit much closer to the mark that Elysium was aiming for. It goes beyond what might typically be thought of as a difference in dialect such as alterations in pronunciation or the apperance of jargon specific to online conversations. While it includes these things, it is seen in every aspect of language use.

Part of it has to do with Chiggie and dasmo's observations on language use online. If we are indeed compensating (even subconciously) for the inherent weaknesses in the writen word while attempting to comunicate our ideas as genuinely as possible, I believe it would be logical to expect language use to be affected on a large scale, even if only subtley.

quick edit: I'd just like to add that what I'm trying to get at is that we are not simply seeing a "degredation" or "perversion" of our language, even though some of the most extreme example of online comunication might be faily called such. I think it would be a mistake to simply label online language as some lesser form of itself.

Oh Crowbar Toting Friend:

Nailed it, as always. If anything, I would posit that certain kind of communities actually advance the sophistication of discourse among their participants: witness this very conversation. The reason I've always been attracted to this site has been the quality, not just the content, of the writing. I can read a crapass review anywhere. But there's simply nowhere else on the web where you can read Kat defending the terrible Dragon Warrior for its simple right to suck. In short, we have amongst this band of brothers (and sisters) a community actually built from the ground up to foster better communications about a focal topic.

Damn I love the internet.

dasmo wrote:

but, since i also bear The Mark of an english degree, along with the added serif of an even more useless Master of Arts, allow me to ponder 'aloud':

And yet they didn't teach you proper capitalization?

Just poking fun!

Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

Taggart: Ditto!

Damn you people, making me check dictionary.com all the time and making good and mind boggling observations. Again you guys give me views of the internet wich I did not see before, thank you for that.

Let me try and add something too about the emoticons and language. What I immediately noticed about GWJ was the lack of emoticons. In the years I have been online, I have learned that when you transfer ideas into text, it sometimes helps the reader to include an emoticon to make the idea clearer. They at least make clear the emotion behind the text written before or after it. But gradually you start to use them more and more, until almost any sentence has one. I still delete my emoticons from the posts I make at this forum, because they still come out every so often...;)

Koning_Floris wrote:

In the years I have been online, I have learned that when you transfer ideas into text, it sometimes helps the reader to include an emoticon to make the idea clearer. They at least make clear the emotion behind the text written before or after it. But gradually you start to use them more and more, until almost any sentence has one. I still delete my emoticons from the posts I make at this forum, because they still come out every so often...;)

Exactly! You don't even notice it at first. But gradually they become an increasingly important part of your online "vocabulary" and grammar, to the point where they become an instinctive part of sentence construction. At which point, are they a writing crutch, or a legitimate extension of the language?

...which serves to remind me of my frustration when trying to pronounce lol outloud. lol

<---- Hmm, you'd think a simple, "no animated icons please" would suffice rather than this attempt at public humiliation.

It's quick and easy to change, which is why the light-hearted notice is there. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

I guess I worded that too strongly but I still think its a somewhat petty way of accomplishing things.

But whatever, I'm not losing sleep over it.