IM and language
In its quarterly “tip” mail, ACM tagged Naomi Baron’s Instant messaging and the future of language” from the July CACM. I was hopeful when I read the tagline for the article:
The writing style commonly used in IMing, texting, and other forms of computer-mediated communication need not spell the end of normative language.
Yes, sounds good; the linguistic Huns are not at the village gates.
Baron contextualizes IM in the history of linguistic development, correctly pointing out that standardized orthography is a relatively recent phenomenon, and that contextually motivated use of abbrevations and code indicates sophistication, not stupidity. I’m glad to see her point out that common sense notions about abbrevations, brevity, and “bad writing” are refuted by her study of undergraduates using AIM:
Our research suggests that IM conversations serve largely pragmatic information-sharing and social-communication functions rather than providing contexts for establishing or maintaining group identity. Moreover, college students often eschew brevity. Our data contains few abbreviations or acronyms. Spelling is remarkably good, and punctuation isn’t particularly bad either.
But at the end of the article, Baron falls into alarmism. Students are likely to drop IM lingo, she writes, as they move from high school to college—in other words, as they grow up. Yet her conclusion implies that we risk sliding into a linguistic abyss because of IM:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of their teachers, not wanting to be branded as troglodytes out of touch with contemporary culture, tolerate IM novelties in classroom written assignments. No harm, but only if these same teachers ensure their students develop a solid grasp of traditional writing conventions as well. Unless society is willing to accept people spelling their names six different ways or using commas, semicolons, and periods according to whim, we owe it to our children and to our students to make certain they understand the difference between creativity and normative language use. Knowledge of contemporary CMC style (and the social control IM and other media offer) is empowering. However, if today’s teenagers are also to master more formal written language style, their parents and teachers must provide good models and, if necessary, even gentle sticks. (my emphasis)
If the data shows that IM lingo goes away when students enter college, who cares about a few anecdotes about bad teachers? Kudos to Baron for not just attacking IM, for actually doing some empirical work, and for posting a lot of her scholarship online. But she earns no points for broad claims which merely echo the “spelling and grammar first” and “formality and conventional discourse will save the world” lore which has stultified composition instruction for years.
