March 10, 2010
E-speak? Lol.
THE BIG PONDER: Has e-speak bridged the gap between the written and spoken word?
Many languages, such as English, are made up of a spoken and written component. For these languages (I’m thinking Indo-European), it takes a while for the written language to “catch up” to the spoken word. The written word is sluggish because it’s generally reserved for more formal, permanent communications. The written word (read: the published word) had to adhere to certain grammatical standards and rules, whereas the spoken word is constantly changing and evolving. (Never mind for the moment that “standard English grammar” in and of itself is a whole other can of worms.)
Personal communication, being informal by nature, doesn’t have to be edited for spelling mistakes, correct punctuation placement, or grammar. And yet, as the writer desires to transmit a comprehensible message along to the reader, it is absolutely necessary for the writer to adhere to some sort of grammar (thank you, Noam, for your colorless, green ideas).
Let’s leap back for a sec: Diaries, letters, and even post-its have been around for quite some time. These are all forms of personal communication where the grammar isn’t always formal. In fact, depending on the audience, the grammar found in these kinds of documents reflects the grammar of the spoken word instead of the rules of the written word, but no one ever pitched a fit about it. So why is it that e-speak is causing such linguistic turmoil? Simple: letters, diaries, and even post-its are not instantaneous forms of communication. Chatting online happens in real time. Texting happens in real time. Even e-mail, although slower than chatting, happens more frequently than letter writing. Spoken language evolves through USE. Therefore, it makes sense that the more we USE e-speak, the more it will change and evolve, just like a spoken language. E-speak is the method in which people informally write. In other words, e-speak is the perfect medium to write like you talk, thus bridging the gap between the formal, written word and the fleeting, verbal word.
Now, to get back to the BIG PONDER. Do you think that e-speak has bridged the gap between the written and spoken word?
gargoyle said,
March 12, 2010 at 2:17 am
i commented yesterday but it looks like it was lost. i’ll post a brief, grammatically incorrect version here.
i don’t think language is a simple line spectrum, with written and oral on opposing ends and ‘e-speak’ in the middle. i view the evolution of e-speak as a result of its function, efficiency. i think the focus on oral speech is fluidit, and written language, formality.
the techniques used in e-speak are more akin to air traffic controllers and fast food restaurant order takers (the ones who shout code-names for meals to the cooks in back) or morse code / old school wire operators.
but hey, what do i know? these are just the musings of a mcdonalds future manager.
Topher said,
March 12, 2010 at 5:09 am
I must say, I agree with gargoyle.
As I read it, espeak is the use of vocabulary like lol and l8r along with a haphazard treatment of English grammar.
If so, it is not a way to write how people talk, but a sort of shorthand for saving time while typing. Some people do use espeak words in conversation, but as a reference to the internet. The development did not originate in speech.
Personally, I write the way I would talk if I had a little more time to thing. Perhaps my papers are a little more formal, but essentially, the grammar and usage is the same.
While espeak may be a new development in the English language, I don’t think it is one that stems form speech and I hope to God it never becomes acceptable for anything that isn’t written withing 60 seconds.
Topher said,
March 12, 2010 at 10:34 am
I also want to point out that one part of Chomsky’s argument is rendered invalid by its own success. The quote at the beginning of the Wikipedia page speaks of a “statistical model for grammaticalness” that would judge whether something is grammatically correct based on how often it has been used in discourse. Because his sentence has no semantic sense it has not been used often in English discourse and so would show up as ungrammatical in the statistical model.
However, because Chomsky’s argument is so famous, the sentence has indeed occurred with some frequency in English discourse and therefore would be picked up as grammatical by a computer program analyzing speech. Of course I realize that it is never used except as an example of a nonsensical sentence, but I’m still struck by a certain irony in the situation.