Cmc and The Oversimplification of Standard Language

As the medium in which communication changes, so too does the language practiced through that medium. This is an effect that can be observed throughout history as new forms of communication have been popularized such as the pen and paper, mass produced book, telephone, and now the computer and smartphone. Each of these platforms had a substantial effect on language because they taught their users certain idiosyncrasies that permeated oral and written communication. For instance, while a “meme” used to exclusively refer to an idea that would spread throughout culture much like a gene spreads throughout a generation of people, it now seems to only be a reference to a type of online joke that exists on social media platforms. This is a result of computer mediated communication or CMC dominating the linguistic landscape and altering language used outside of electronics. By examining instances of how CMC can affect individual’s grammar, lexical skills, and orthography, one can get a better understanding of how CMC can negatively and positively influence the literacy skills of the younger generation.

To understand how CMC forces users to alter their language, it is necessary to understand the restrictions that may exist across online platforms. For instance, using MSN messenger, sending an SMS text, or replying to a message on Twitter each have distinct characteristics even though they all take place in an online environment. These characteristics vary by message size limit, synchronicity of communication, visibility, level of interactivity, technology, and channel of communication (Verheijen 129). When communicating on Twitter, users are limited to just 140-character messages sent in an asynchronous manner that can be distributed via mobile phone or computer. This is quite different from using MSN Messenger to communicate, as it has no message size limit, involves sending synchronous message in real time, is completely private in visibility, and can only be used on the computer (Verheijen 129). Each of these characteristics alters how users communicate because of the restrictions put on the communication medium. Twitter forces users to shorten both the individual words and overall content of their messages while MSN hides messages in private conversations. As a result, users begin to pick up on different patterns of language that are associated with the platform they are using.

One of the linguistic concepts commonly associated with CMC is textisms, which are modifications to words and sentences through abbreviations, single letters, and symbols. In Verheijen’s 2015 study, the author revealed how different types of digital platforms tend to have varying levels of textisms. She found that for every 10,000 words, MSN users included 1,775 textisms while SMS and Twitter users included just 736 and 452 textisms (Verheijen 133). This data is interesting because one would expect that a platform like Twitter which forces users into delivering shorter messages would encourage them to inherently practice more instances of textisms. In reality, the fact that Twitter is an asynchronous platform that allows messages to be exchanged sequentially over time gives users the opportunity to filter out a greater number of their textisms. Verheijen states that “Instant messaging, by contrast is synchronous, which makes it direct, immediate and rushed: users have to respond rapidly to keep up with the conversational pace in order to maintain the floor” (134). In essence, instant messaging teaches users that being able to send a quick message is more important than sending a message that is free of grammatical or spelling errors.

Once users become accustomed to a CMC platform such as MSN Messenger or Twitter, the orthography they learn through CMC language can potentially permeate into other areas of communication. Looking at a syntactic feature of CMC, it is often the case that CMC language encourages users to omit certain function words (Frehner 65). Rather than saying “I am going to leave for the United States on August 5,” someone could get away with the sentence “will leave 4 US on 5 Aug.” Although the meaning between each sentence might be the same, the structure and appearance are certainly different. These sorts of shortened sentences can be problematic for ESL learners who are already having to deal with the challenges that the regular lexical and grammatical rules of English prevent. When using CMC platforms, these users will be much more likely to misunderstand a message if it is being altered into an almost entirely new language.

Problems can arise if users of CMC consciously or unconsciously start to make these sorts of language alterations in and outside of CMC. For instance, Frehner mentions how a corpus of electronic communications found that subject deletion occurred at a rate of 12.63 times per 1,000 words (Frehner 64). This can be observed in messages such as “Didn’t get any mail from you, so don’t know where it went” or “Was feeling a bit crap yesterday with exam revision so just wanted to chat to you” (Frehner 64). These sentences are grammatically flawed and individuals who continue to make such omissions are going to be more likely to make these mistakes when communicating through other mediums. Even though languages like Japanese and Italian may be considered null-subject languages where noun phrases can be considered redundant, English does not have this same characteristic (Rizzi 501).

Another issue related to omission is copula deletions, in which variations of be are intentionally left out. Frehner mentions how these occurred 2.83 times per 1,000 words in the corpus that she referenced, with around a third of the deletions existing in combination with the existential there or an article ellipsis (Frehner 66). Examples of this could include sentences like “You going to the dance later?” or “Free food tonight in the cafeteria.” In these sentences, the speaker is omitting copulas including are and there is. Once again, while those who are fluent and familiar with English may understand the implications being made by leaving out copulas, less experienced learners will struggle to correctly pick up on the meaning. This is something that has been observed in copula deletion that occurs in African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Lippi-Green talks about how those who are unfamiliar with AAVE may have poor reactions to sentences like “They driving on the wrong side” in which auxiliaries are omitted (255). The same is likely to be true of users of individuals unfamiliar with CMC and how some users choose to practice copula deletion in order to fit messages in a tweet or SMS message.

Despite the problems that may arise out of heavy CMC use, authors such as David Craig have argued that the pushback against CMC platforms is not threatening youth literacy as much as some believe it to be. Craig believes that instant messaging “promotes regular contact with words, the use of a written medium for communication, the learning of an alternative literacy, and a greater level of comfort with phonetics and the overall structure of language” (119). Craig collected and analyzed over 11,000 lines of text to make these assumptions after asking youth in the United States aged 12 to 17 to provide examples of chat logs.

Throughout Craig’s essay, he breaks down and fires back against common arguments made by critics of CMC. The author mentions that while some believe instant messaging is a corruption of English language because users may replace “everyone” with “every1” or the word “to” with the number “2,” Craig is insistent that such changes are beneficial examples of language play. For instance, preschoolers transition from singing nonsensical chants into playing with variations of sound and symbolic meanings as they grow older. As children practice these types of behaviors and then go on to shift their change through instant messaging, they are demonstrating metalinguistic skills that proves they know how language works and they are choosing to use an altered version of it (Craig 124). This makes CMC appear much more benign and beneficial than critics believe it to be.

Other researchers point out that CMC does not necessarily have to be associated with textisms or other intentional and unintentional alterations to the English language. For example, Warschauer’s 1997 study details some of these benefits that are often left out of the more common criticisms of CMC. For instance, Warschauer makes the point that CMC creates social dynamics in communication that tend to be more equitable in participation, and “those who are traditionally shut out of discussions” will benefit most from this increase in participation (473). A 1991 meta-analysis by Sproull and Kiesler helped confirm this by discovering that electronic discussion groups from users who have different statuses and backgrounds had around twice as much equality compared to face-to-face discussions (54). This is a major advantage of online communications because in an online and often anonymous environment, everyone is equal and judged according to their words rather than their appearance. Additionally, those who may suffer from social anxiety can find a great deal of comfort in CMC because they can have more control over when, where, and how they communicate.

Although researchers continue to debate its effects, computer mediated communication is sure to play a major role in affecting language for many decades into the future. Even though users of CMC may practice harmful textisms, they still end up experimenting with language in new and beneficial ways. As a result, CMC cannot be labeled in a single binary way. Instead, it must be said that this language platform has both negative and positive effects on young learners.