Evolution of Communication

Our final paper for Social Dynamics of Communication Technology...


The Changing Nature of Communication and Our Value of Writing and Grammar
Connor Benedict, Brandy A. Lee, Roberta Walker
Gonzaga University

The manner in which humans communicate has continued to evolve since the beginning of our existence. From primary oral cultures to the introduction and subsequent advances in writing, to the electronic and virtual media we use today to communicate messages, for better or worse, humans manipulate communication technologies in an attempt to fulfill the Communication Imperative (Thurlow, et al., 2004 p. 51). Along the way supporters and critics like Plato, Chomsky, Ong and Gitlin have gone to great lengths to understand and explain the effects of these technologies in an attempt to enlighten those who otherwise may never know their effects. To those who listen, the significance of this task does not go unnoticed, nor the magnitude of effort involved in educating the users of these emerging and ever changing technologies. Understanding how communication technologies affect human endeavors for a more perfect experience means casting “light on how our world works” (Gitlin, 2007, p. 1). As a result, it is our intent to explain some of the ways virtual communication and computer-mediated communication (CMC) have influenced the manner in which we communicate with one another, our value of writing and grammar.

Virtual communication has changed the way many people communicate with one another. However, it has taken alternate reality a step further, beyond books and movies, by introducing the computer as mediator or imagination enhancer (Lavroff, 1997, p. 7). While computer-mediated communication (CMC) may no longer be a novelty, it is this invisible impact that we must be most cautious of, especially as it casts new light onto uncharted territory (Gitlin, 2007, 23). Social scientists have become increasingly interested in understanding the characteristics of CMC and its effects on people, groups, and organizations (Rivera & Galimberti, 1997, p. 141-158). However, the impact virtual communication has on our culture must be in the interest of all those who use it. Gitlin (2007) speaks of virtual reality in the same manner virtual communicators should think of virtual communication (22-23). “With virtual [communication], we have the illusion of” a FTF conversation (23). “We expect [it] to heighten life, to intensify and focus it by being better than real, more” personal communication (23). However, while this phenomenon may seem “obvious and fundamental” to the social scientists studying its effects, enlightening others to its strangeness has been difficult at best (23). Therefore, the first step in identifying the changing manner in which we communicate with one another must not only be the identification of a change, but must also be the pedagogy of all its users to the significance of the change.

It is our position that the process by which we are educated is an effective way to highlight the important role CMC plays in changing the way we communicate. Historically education has been defined as an individual vocation (Harran, 2004). As early as 400 B.C., young men would surround Socrates in a marketplace in Athens to ask questions and learn. Today undergraduate students, like those attending Gonzaga, continue to rely on FTF communication as a means to learn and earn a degree. These unconnected scenes are not at all dissimilar. However, while the FTF interaction shown by these examples continues to be the core of our learning tradition, the loss of FTF interaction between teacher and student has been facilitated by the technology of CMC. To some, it is a natural evolution, a transition to make communication more accessible and more useful (Rheingold, 1993, p. 3). To others, it is a diminution of the importance of human interaction, reducing conversation to ones and zeroes, or replacing FTF relationships with text. (Lea & Spears, 1993, p.233). However, whether we focus on the answers distance learning provides to the problems of availability (Beller & Or, 1998), or the challenges “fully distance environments continue to present…for learners,” (Palaus, 2007) the significant role CMC plays in education and more broadly the manner in which we communicate is apparent.

Understanding its importance is one thing, however, once this enlightenment takes place Postman (1993) says that “what we need to consider about the computer has nothing to do with its efficiency as a teaching tool. We need to know in what ways it is altering our conception of learning, and how…it undermines the old idea of school” (19). Luckily, as computer technology becomes both more intrusive and prevalent, McKenna & Bargh (1998) say that its uses and misuses are increasingly falling under the critical scrutiny of academic researchers and critics. Thurlow, et al. (2004) also recognize the potential undermining effects of CMC, however, in the same breath he recognizes the “new and exciting synergy” it can create (10). If traditional educational methods are supported, they must be flexible enough to encompass technology, as a means, however, not an end.

Another way virtual and CMC have influenced the manner in which we communicate has been noticed in the accommodations their users have made in an environment that does not allow for nonverbal cues. Thurlow, et al. (2004) say “there is still a popular idea that online communication cannot really be as social as ‘proper’ or ‘normal’ communication…” (70). The information used to decide which aspects of social conduct are appropriate lies in cultural context rather than in the shape or sound of words alone (Wittgenstein, 1953, p. 220). During FTF communication, the involved parties rely on their nonverbal cues to delineate the context from which to act or contribute (Thurlow, et al., 2004, p. 18). “Being cultured,” says Greg Dening, “we are experts in our semiotics. We read sign and symbol and codify a thousand words in a gesture” (102). If words are stripped of the environmental and social context in which they are used, they have little meaning (173). This means that context is the creator of the social meaning needed for proper communication. Knowing that “nonverbal cues…are certainly very important in managing interactions with people,” (61) and considering the Communication Imperative, it follows that a culture reliant on CMC must accommodate for the lack of nonverbal cues in order to “maximize our communication satisfaction and interaction” (51).

In an attempt to level the playing field between FTF and virtual communication, users have developed ways to convey shades of expression that would usually be transmitted through nonverbal cues (Geertz, 1973, p. 45). The method of incorporating socio-emotional context cues into virtual conversations is the solution to, and therefore, a necessity for fulfilling the Communication Imperative. Socio-emotional context clues such as “emoticons,” “creative keyboard use,” “identity markers,” “bending language rules” and “going multimodal,” are things virtual communicators have incorporated into their conversations in an attempt to answer the “demands of impression management” (52). While Postman (1993) may argue that society must be weary of accepting these changes as positive (121), Sproull & Kiesler (1991) say that the divorce of social presence from physical presence is no longer a factor that assumes FTF interaction as the ideal communication method (48). Either way, the socio-emotional clues found in virtual and CMC, which have primarily come from the informal hands of folk linguists, have drastically affected the manner in which we communicate (Thurlow, 2004, p. 120). For virtual communicators, text replaces gesture, and may even redefine our understanding of gesture itself.

If all CMC systems can be said to have one single unifying effect on human behavior it is that usage tend to cause the user to become less inhibited (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991, p. 48). They continue to describe computer-mediated behavior as “relatively uninhibited and nonconforming” (48). Although they often disagree on the degree to which inhibition effects CMC, Sproull & Kiesler (1991) note that users tend to behave more freely during virtual conversations than they would in FTF interaction. While some virtual communicators saw an increase in friendliness and intimacy, researchers have mostly drawn a correlation between un-inhibition and an increase in aggressive or disrespectful behavior such as flaming (Turnage, 2007). Although there are different definitions in the literature as to what constitutes a flame, most studies claim that “messages showing attributes such as hostility, aggression, intimidation, insults, offensiveness, unfriendly tone, uninhibited language, and sarcasm” can be considered flames (2007). Flaming, or increased aggression is another way virtual and CMC has influenced the manner in which we communicate.

Virtual and CMC have not only changed the way in which we communicate, but have also changed the value of our writing. One way CMC has changed writing has been seen in the use of informal abbreviations. CMC has shrunk the world and as a result has allowed us to communicate faster, over larger distances. However, a perceived need to turn out quick answers and receive quick responses has encouraged virtual communicators to create an abbreviated code that facilitates these quick interactions. Being that CMC is an extension of writing technology, the idea to abbreviate words to save time and space is not new or novel. Scribes and authors have been sensitive to the need for speed for a long time and in the process have adopted new rules to accommodate these newer technologies. In the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia, pictographs yielded to wedge-shaped cuneiforms, which were faster to carve into clay (Coulmas, 1989, p. 74-75). Cicero dictated his speeches to his secretary Tiro, who recorded them in shorthand (Saenger, 1982, p. 373). In late medieval manuscripts abbreviations were used extensively to speed up the copying process (Ullman, 1960, p. 11). The manner in which CMC has influenced writing is similar to those described above. Virtual communicators today, like the scribes of the past who used abbreviations to save space and time, condense messages into abbreviations (e.g., k for “okay”) and acronyms (e.g., ttyl for “talk to you later”).

Postman (1998) states that, “all technological change is a trade-off… Technology giveth and technology taketh away.” While the world has shrunk and allowed us to communicate faster over larger distances, it comes with a price. What is the cost? Tasks done with greater speed equals the possibility for more error and the sacrifice of written as well as grammatical rules. It has shortened the time needed to talk on the phone or write a letter. With it have come new rules for grammar.

Technology, however, has increased production speed even further. Baron states that the introduction of the typewriter, word processing, and online communication has increased the rate at which a person can compose sentences.

Baron (2002) gives an example of speed and error in the December 2002 issue of The Atlantic. Cambridge University Press ran a full-page ad inviting readers to “Pamper Your Intellect.” It recommended titles that would serve as “mental spas.” “But instead of pampering, the discerning reader was dealt and unkind blow” (p. 1). There were no fewer than six proofreading errors: proper names were misspelled (e.g., Immanuel Kant became “Immanuel Kent”), common nouns (e.g., “Environment” digressed to “Enviorment”), and subtitles on the book jackets didn’t match up with those listed in the text (e.g., “My Father’s Life with Bipolar Disorder” changed to “My Father’s Life with Bipolar Disease”) (2002).

She asks if Cambridge “was simply having a bad day or it editorial sloppiness becoming ubiquitous?” (2002). Observing the world around her, she believes it is the latter. Further examples can be seen in signage for the Washington, DC metro system. There is a subway stop that appears two different ways: sometimes it is correct as “Tenleytown”, and other times it is incorrectly printed as two words, i.e. “Tenley Town.” Baron states, “The issue, I suggest, is not so much a devolution of proofreading skills as a quiet revolution in social attitudes towards linguistic consistency” (2002).

In her article The Future of Written Culture: Envisioning Language in the New Millennium Baron states that users of online communication tend to be sloppier than traditional written equivalents.

The reasons are both social and linguistic. Writing in general is becoming increasingly informal and speech-like. Online writing presents an opportunity to express ourselves less self-consciously than traditional writing or even to forge a new linguistic genre. Resistance to editing online text reflects a broader trend towards diminished concern with how we present ourselves to others. Fueled by prevailing social support (at least in the United States) for celebrating diversity, these trends may also reflect growing acceptance of whatever other people say or think – including the style, grammar, and spelling used to express such thoughts in writing (22).

So, what’s the hurry when people are communicating online or through some other form of electronic mediated communication? Baron states that it comes from the ease in which we can communicate so quickly. “A lot of pressure to composed-and-send seems to be social. As more of the population goes online and as asynchronous e-mail gives way to synchronous instant messaging, interlocutors are literally sitting and waiting for us to reply” (22).

This then begs the question, how important is writing and grammar in the 21st century world? Do speed and ease allow the writer to throw all previously known rules out the window? An opinion writer in the Daily Post wrote, “Not since man uttered his first word and clumsily held a primitive pencil nearly 10,000 years ago has there been such a revolution in language” (2001). Baron states:

An odd paradox is emerging regarding uses of and attitudes towards the written word. On the surface, writing is flourishing, with computer mediated communication playing a significant role. Yet as we dig deeper, looking not just at the annual number of emails sent or sales figures at Amazon.com, we detect a cultural shift in the ways in which we think about and use written communication. (2002: 4).

In his book Orality and Literacy Ong talks about the invention of writing. While many may not think of writing as an invention, he states, “Because today we have so deeply interiorized writing, made it so much a part of ourselves… we find it difficult to consider writing to be a technology as we commonly assume printing and the computer to be.”

Before writing, humans spoke to one another citing things from memory. They drew pictures and had various recording devices, but all of these were considered mere memory aids, not script. Postman states, “In a culture without writing, human memory is of the greatest importance, as are proverbs, sayings and songs which contain the accumulated oral wisdom of centuries” (1998). In Kings I we learn that Solomon knew 2,000 proverbs and he was called the wisest of men. But Postman continues to say that in a culture with writing, “such feats of memory are considered a waste of time” (1998).

Ong (1982) makes the declaration that, of the three technologies (writing, print, and computers), “More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness.” He asks the reader to imagine a world where people have never ‘looked up’ anything, where they have no visual metaphors. There is only speech and by memory history was to be passed down. Sound and time, therefore, had an important relationship. Ong states:

“All sensation takes place in time, but sounds has a special relationship to time unlike that of the other fields that register in human sensation… If I stop the movement of sound, I have nothing – only silence, no sound at all. All sensation takes place in time, but no other sensory field totally resists a holding action, stabilization, in quite this way” (1982: 78).

Socrates said to Phaedrus, "And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them..." With the invention of writing, a person who maybe wasn’t prepared to learn something would now have access to it. Writing thus becomes the technology to speech. Before writing people only had speech and their memory. But when writing came along, everything changed and it allowed people to "tumble" the opinion of others about as the words were reproduced and passed along. Ong states, “In the total absence of any writing, there is nothing outside the thinker, no text, to enable him or her to produce the same line of thought again or even to verify whether he or she had done so or not” (1982).

But oral characteristics were still part of this new emerging written culture. Particular attention was paid to writing mechanics such as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and handwriting. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, standardized spelling became important, and in the nineteenth century, penmanship became increasingly important, especially for the rising middle classes (Thornton, 1996).

Recently, however, American social lines have been redrawn to include a poor underclass, a small upper class, and a bulging middle class, the majority of the US population has declared itself socially arrived. Baron calls this convergence shaping a new attitude towards spoken and written discourse “linguistic whatever-ism” (2002). She states:

The challenge to the fundamental principle of language as rule-governed behavior is less a display of linguistic defiance than a natural reflection of changing educational policies, shifts in social agendas, a move in academia towards philosophical relativism, the magnifying effects of technologies that support computer mediated communication, and a commitment to life on the clock.

Money over education has emerged as the primary status marker in America. How one speaks and/or writes is less significant than the dollar amount on a paycheck or where a family vacations throughout the year. While there is a host of literature attempting to define online style, Baron states that “there are signs that the laid-back approach to writing online is beginning to infiltrate off-line writing as well” (2002).

Thurlow, et al. state, "The visual anonymity which is often part of CMC means that participants can also optimize their self-presentation and maybe also stop worrying about the way they look. Both these things usually make us feel more relaxed and happy within ourselves" (2004). This can be said of writing and grammar as well. There is a general growth of informality and a presentation of self in everyday life. Off-line writing now mirrors closer to informal speech and online writing to seen as ephemeral. In both CMC and electronic mediated communication writing comes in bursts and fragments, and spelling and punctuation are loose and playful. The thought is that no one reads e-mail with a red pen in hand.

Understanding that the first impression is the most important, the Marketing Institute of Singapore is offering an executive development program on writing effective e-mails.

The increasing ease of use and decreasing cost of such tools have encouraged businesses to adopt such communication methods in place of letters, faxes and the telephone. However, the downside is that sometimes less than professional messages are sent out affecting the company’s brand image and/or the sender’s professional image negatively… Participants will learn how to use the e-mail and other CMC as a public relations tool and develop professional netiquette. This hands-on workshop is designed to create a win-win situation every time you correspond with customers via CMC.

Baron states, “If traditional functions of written language are being reconfigured, so are attributes historically associated with written culture” (2002: 16). She further states that shifting technologies and evolving cultural assumptions now challenge the way we think about access to the tools and products of literacy and the written word (16).

What then is a written culture? Baron states, “Written culture is defined by its practitioners’ assumptions about differences between spoken and written code, along with social and legal agreements about notions of authorship” (2002). Throughout history it was not uncommon for societies with written works to function orally. Baron notes how literacy was important to the emergence of philosophical thinking in Classical Greece. But yet fifth-century Athens retained its oral culture. The Iliad, the Odyssey, and works of other playwrights and poets were intended to be read aloud, not studied as books (2002).

In his book Scrolling Forward, David Levy (2001) discusses a reader’s relation to bound books and online books. He asks if those who object to reading online are simply clinging to the bound version because it is familiar to them or if there is an actual difference between the traditional and online versions. Levy compares his childhood copy of Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass with a Web version at the library. Being a computer scientist by training, he finds value in both versions, but writes about how different they are. In the end, Levy likes the printed version. He prefers the print because he has childhood memories attached to the book. The Web version has no memories attached to it.

In the end it seems that ways in which virtual and CMC have changed the manner in which we communicate, our value of writing and grammar are almost too numerous to count. We have shown many of the changes that have occurred from the use these technologies. However, while we have highlighted some of the major changes found in our research, there are many more as well as others that have not yet been identified. The danger is that because “technology does not invite a close examination of its own consequences” (Postman, 1993, p. xii) we might not critically ponder all of those things that create those changes. Because we cannot stop technological progress (Thurlow, et al., 2004, p. 41), the idea that we must lend a constant and critical eye to that progress becomes all the more essential. This, then, must be the answer to an unstoppable evolving process, so that we may control and shape the progress of these technologies for the future, instead of letting them spiral out of control.

References

Baron, N.S. (2002). “Whatever.” A new language model? Paper presented at the 2002
Convention of the Modern Language Association. Dec. 27-30, New York, New
York.
Beller, M., & Or, E. (1998). The crossroads between lifelong learning and information
technology: A challenge facing leading universities. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 4(2). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue2/beller.html
Coulmas, F. (1989). Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Blackwell.
Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of Cultures : Selected Essays. New York: Basic
Books.
Gitlin, T. (2007). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms
our lives. New York: Holt.
Harran, M. (2004) Martin Luther and Education: Ideas for the 21st Century Retrieved March 4, 2009 from www.achieve.elca.org/socialstatement.
McKenna, K. & Bargh, J. A. (1998) Coming Out in the Age of the Internet: Identity Demarginalization Through Virtual Group Participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 75 (3).
Lavroff, N. (1997) Virtual Reality Playhouse. Corte Madera Ca: Waite Group Press.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Levy, D. (2001). Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age. New York: Arcade Publishing.
Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and Literacy. New York: Methuen.
Paulus, T. (2007). CMC modes for learning tasks at a distance. Journal of Computer-
ediated Communication, 12(4), article 9.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/paulus.html
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York:
Vintage.
Postman, N. (1998). Five things we need to know about technological change. Speech given in Denver, CO on March 27, 1998.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Rivera G. & Galimberti, C. (1997) The Psychology of Cyperspace: A socio-cognitive framework to computer mediated communication. New Ideas in Psychology, 15 (2).
Saenger, P. (1982). “Silent Reading: Its Impact on Late Medieval Script and Society”. Viator 13: 367-414.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: social interaction and the internet. Sage Publications: London.
Turnage, A. K. (2007). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 3. Retrieved January 25,
2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/turnage.html.
Ullman, B.L. (1960). The Origin and Development of Humanistic Script. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Unknown (2001) Daily Post. September 26, 2001.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. New York: The MacMillan Company.