Like technology, our English language is constantly evolving: more texts and e-mails include slangs or abbreviations. From ‘hahaha’ to ‘lol’, from ‘wait a moment’ to ‘brb’, responses in English have gotten shorter and shorter. Some people view this change as a disgrace to the language. I believe, however, abbreviations in the right context serve for faster communication and understanding. After all, language is ‘communication of meaning in any way’ (dictionary.reference.com). This shortened form of ‘communication’ should be treated as a special characteristic of the 21st century, not as a degradation of the language.
Abbreviations are the epitome of our fast-paced era. All aspects of life nowadays are designed to increase productivity. From Little Caesar’s ‘hot-n-ready’ pizza to Apple’s iPhone, products stress speed. Every second counts. In relation to capitalism, consumers aim for these time-reducing tools to spend less time waiting and more time working. Likewise, abbreviations have become a faster mean of communication by diminishing the necessary letters. It’s faster to read 'tmr' than 'tomorrow'.
In addition to faster communication, abbreviations provide an alternative form of expression for some people. Nobody is the same. Not everyone can write in complete sentences or impeccable grammar. Perhaps these people write better with numbers and logos. As a result, communicating in abbreviations is easier for them. To write in abbreviations is a choice. We shouldn’t degrade others based on how they write, nor deem their writing ‘colloquial’. Embrace it like a new fashion. In twenty or thirty year’s time, at least we will be noted for our attempt to simplify our modern-day language.
As our History of English booklet says, language change ‘is inevitable, a sign of healthy growth, not decay’ (p. 92). The transition from our current writing to a simpler one is perhaps a result of technological advances. As computers become faster, so does our writing. Humans are constantly on-the-go. Fading and redundant, conventional writing is now being replaced by faster and more effective abbreviations. Consider such a change an evolution, or natural selection, of our modern-day needs. If not, at least don't deem abbreviations 'colloquial'. Regardless of the method, formal and informal languages are just two distinct ways to get the same message across. After all, cavemen developed languages simply to communicate with each other, not to determine which way is better.
Hi Teddy,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that abbreviations play a positive role in an increasingly productive and efficient society. I especially agree that they can be likened to Little Caesar’s “hot-n-ready” pizza; the obvious similarity is that they both “stress speed” and reduce time, but your comparison also alludes to the inconspicuous degradation that can occur when more and more is done in a shorter amount of time. In other words, Little Caesar’s “hot-n-ready” may be fast, but having sat in a warming oven for a few hours, it cannot compare to pizza that is freshly made to order. The difference in quality and taste may not be apparent to the average person, but would definitely be noticeable to the pizza lover or the food connoisseur. The same is true for abbreviations used in language; they may prove to be just an alternative for some, but in the formal settings of the professional and academic world, they would not be accepted because a higher standard exists that is fundamental in ensuring a civilized form of expression. Therefore, I disagree that informal language can “get the same message across” as formal language. Certain literary texts depend on etymologies or connotations to truly understand their meaning; abbreviating language completely changes words, doing far more than just shortening them and therefore, degrading the structure and substance of the English language. Note that I am not suggesting that we should degrade those who use informal language; rather, when it is used in the wrong contexts, the language itself loses its status. Just as the English language during the early modern English period was insufficient in expressing the depth in Greek and Roman texts, requiring the “borrowing” of Latin words, if formal English is slowly replaced by abbreviations, English will once again be lacking in its ability to express the deepest and most complex ideas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour position that efficiency in communication will have a higher practicality or suitability quotient within our high speed modern society is certainly a valid claim that I am in agreement with. However, the assertion that textism comprises a means for greater efficiency seems somewhat presumptive and may not always prove accurate. Although textisms are a definite improvement in agility as opposed to conventional methods in terms of writing speed, the resultant comprehension rates may become severely hampered by this development. Textisms are extremely nonstandard and require lengthy durations of time to decipher. Decoding textisms from intrapersonal communications is often a frustration; performing this same task for interpersonal communications is only even more so. Compressed words strip clarity and precision from a work of writing by alluding only very generally to a range of similar words. As such, these words provoke an extreme degree of ambiguity and a wide opening to various interpretations, a prospect to which I am against. Words as they exist today commonly have multiple connotations. To compress groups of words together, as textisms naturally do, will have the effect of applying a multiplication model to this already large expanse of possible interpretations specific to each word. The effect is negative. Furthermore, the world is indeed becoming increasingly rapid, but the world is also becoming complexified. Change has definitely become crucial. However, I would argue that change in language is necessary in the direction of growth to reflect our deepening world rather than in the direction of reductionism. Again, textisms is positive as a growth, but shall not be an alternative. Likewise, minimalists may choose at their will, but they shall not impose this upon others.
ReplyDelete(This comment is regarding using textisms in formal situations, not in casual conversation.)