Citation for my last post...

Wadman, Ruth, Kevin Durkin, and Gina Conti-Ramsden. 2008. Self-esteem, shyness, and sociability in adolescents with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 51: 938-952.

Language and Self-Esteem

For today (Monday), I read an article about how Specific Language Impairment (SLI) can effect individuals' self-esteem. I thought this was an important topic to investigate while we were on the section about Language and Self, because it's a reminder about how the ability to effectively express ourselves impacts how we really perceive ourselves.

The authors used the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale to assess self-esteem ratings of 16-17 year-olds with SLI and compared their results to those of their peers with typical language ability. They found that "the SLI participants had lower self-esteem than peers but these scores were within the expected range (ie, not abnormally low)" (947).

It was important to note that there is no clear arrow of causality in this study. The authors suggest that SLI is a good predictor of shyness, which in turn leads to lower self-esteem. The SLI participants showed high levels of sociability, but tended to exhibit shyness nonetheless. This highlights a notion that Goffman touched upon, that the way others perceive an individual is important in influencing how the individual perceives him or herself.

The authors state that "Having positive regard for the self is favorable for general well-being and may protect adolescents with SLI from long-term negative outcomes, such as mental health problems and loneliness" (949). I thought this was a significant article overall because it emphasizes the importance of langauage in relation to self-image.

Poetry

With this most recent set of readings, we're finally seeing more examples of the poetic function of language through cross-cultural examples. Abu-Lughod indicates that poetry is the acceptable means of expression emotion (especially love); to talk about emotions or feelings in any other way would be unacceptable. For example, she tells the story of a woman who would not discuss any feelings about her divorce. However, she started reciting a poem that was obviously about her sadness at losing her husband. Abu-Lughod emphasizes that in this example, the woman "expressed the sentiments of love in poetry - but she denied those sentiments in her ordinary conversation" (31).

In another example, Urban highlights the poetic function of ritual wailing in South America. This type of wailing is a way to express emotion, but it is poetic in that it is not the same as expressing emotion in ordinary conversation. Interestingly, Urban states that "It is intended not to be heard, in the ordinary linguistic sense, but rather to be overheard" (160). This is in a sense allowing people to catch a glimpse of emotions that should not be expressed in any other way.

It's interesting to think about these two examples in comparison with our own cultural situation. In the US, we have unspoken guidelines about where and when and how it is appropriate (or not) to express certain emotions or other aspects of our personal selves. However, we have the freedom to follow or ignore these guidelines as we choose (ie, "The Decline and Fall of the Private Self").

Performing...?

Not to get all metalinguistic on you, but...

Are these blogs (or any writing, for that matter) considered performances? Today we saw how it can be difficult to determine what is or is not a performance, and I can't decide whether writing is or not.

In a way, I think writing can be considered a performance because it's generally intended for an audience. Also, the writer shapes his or her thoughts in a way that would be the most appealing for a particular audience (you might write in one style for one audience but in another style for a different audience).

But maybe one could argue that writing is not a performance because the act of writing itself is not intended for anyone to see and is not really open to much interpretation. When I see someone in the act of writing, the extent of my thoughts is usually "there's someone writing;" there is not much to analyze.

Or, maybe writing is just a form of evidence of the performance that lies behind it.

Google Flu Trends

My friend showed me a very interesting article from Wednesday's New York Times that relates to our discussion of communication technology and its many possibilities...

Basically, Google thinks that "it may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Why?

An increasing number of Americans search for topics such as Flu Symptoms when they suspect they might be coming down with something. Since Google can track searches and their frequency, it is developing "a new early warning system for fast-spreading flu outbreaks, called Google Flu Trends."

Through comparisons with CDC report dates and dates of increased flu-related Google searches, Google has recognized that people are turning to the search engine before they contact their doctors, and plan to use this data to provide information such as where an outbreak may occur in the US.

Just another example of the many possibilities for large-scale, technologically based communication!

Helft, Miguel. 2008. Aches, a Sneeze, a Google search. The New York Times: 12 November 2008, page A1 and A23.

Self-monitoring

This post relates to number 11 on our question sheet.

11. How do people decide which self, or which aspect of themselves, to depict on such media as Facebook, Second Life, or games? What considerations do they make? How does that differ from face-to-face, physical portrayals?

Toward the beginning of the semester, we spent a little bit of time discussing this kind of question in my management class in relation to how people portray themselves to different people in the workplace and how online depictions can affect "real people's" perceptions of an individual. The ability to portray yourself in different ways to different people is called self-monitoring, and people who are especially good at depicting very different sides of themselves in different situations would be referred to as high self-monitors (as opposed to always showing the same personality traits no matter the situation).

For example, a student might act and speak one way around friends on a weekend, but then use a different style of language and demeanor in an advising meeting with a professor because different people have different expectations for an individual. Situation and context have a lot to do with varying expressions of self as well (eg, being with a group of old friends vs. being on a first date).

This same concept can be applied to online media portrayals of self. Someone might decide to create two online profiles. One could be a professional profile that includes a serious photo, work experience, and information strictly pertaining to one aspect of the person's life (probably work). The other could be something like a Facebook page, which would include more personal information and which the person would share with friends and family but probably not with boss and coworkers (although this isn't always the case).

An interesting point was raised during the self-monitor discussion that day: is it unethical to have two different Facebook accounts that depict yourself in totally different ways? Would a person be lying if he or she only allowed boss/coworkers access to the more polished, professional page that excludes other aspects of his/her personality?

Log Blog

Like everyone in the class, the day I decided to keep a log on my use of communication technologies was not a typical day. I watched more TV than usual and I emailed and texted less than I usually do. Here is the breakdown:

- 3 total text messages
- 36 Min phone
- 15 min email
- 60 min TV (multitask)
- 17 min IM (multitask)
- 16 min FBook
- 229 min Surfing (mostly for work)
- 3 min "Other" - this was mostly using the digital screen at the gas pump...does that count?

I found that most of my technological interactions were referential in function, but a couple were phatic (IM, phone call). Also, since I watched TV, I engaged the "new function" we discussed the other day. This is a kind of passive, one-sided connection that is more for consumption than communication. If we put TV in that category, should we put written text in that category as well?

omg

Hey everyone, I didn't want to give this away too early but I found one of the most interesting articles I've ever seen and I just can't help but reveal some of it. I was going to talk about it in class and use it in my project so I'll try not to spoil too much...

You know how people sometimes say "brb" or "btw" out loud? An article by Allen Walker Read gives a TON of accounts of things like this that happened in the 1800s. Just as is happening today, some "experts" were worried that speaking and writing in ridiculous acronyms (even in newspapers and other published documents) was going to be detrimental to the English language. Well, apparently it was mostly just a "craze" and the abbreviations went by the wayside, except for the currently-popular "OK." (OK was an abbreviation of a purposefully/playfully misspelled "all correct" - "oll korrect").

Here are some other 1800's examples according to this author's research:

OFM was very common, standing for "our first men," which was "used in a semisatirical sense:"

- All o.f.m. should make frequent pilgrimages to the o.b.s. during this hot weather. (OBS was the Old Boston Stone - which sold ice cream).


NG:
- They then went together to the plaintiff's to try to settle, but it was n.g. (no go).

SP = small potatoes
GT = gone to Texas

This one required a subsequent printed explanation by the editor: G.t.d.h.d. Supposedly it should have been clear to readers that this stood for "Give the devil his due."

And my personal favorite from the article:

NS = Nuff said. (From the 1800s!!)


So, since most of these widely-used abbreviations eventually died out, maybe using txt language now will not be an everlasting trend for English. But who knows...maybe lol will be the next ok?

Technological Predictions

Tomorrow in class I plan to talk about Ray Kurzweil, a computer scientist who has played a large role in the invention of communication technologies such as a reading machine for the blind. James Katz mentioned Kurzweil in "Future Communication Technology and Social Settings." Kurzweil is confident that technological advances for communication and other aspects of life will affect us sooner than we may think. In 1999, he made predictions for the status of certain technologies for future decades. Now that we are quickly approaching the end of 2008, I thought it would be interesting to review some of his predictions for 2009. Some of them are fairly accurate, but others still have not taken off. Here are some samples:

"Individuals primarily use portable computers, which have become dramatically lighter and thinner than the notebook computers of 10 years earlier. Portable computers are available in a wide range of sizes and shapes and are commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry such as wristwatches, rings, earrings, and other body ornaments."

"People typically have at least a dozen computers on and around their bodies, which are networked using "body LANs (local area networks). These computers provide communication facilities similar to cellular phones, pagers, and Web surfers..."

"Cables are disappearing. Communication between components, such as pointing devices, microphones, displays, printers, and the occasional keyboard, uses short-distance wireless technology."

"The majority of text is created using continuous speech recognition (CSR) dictation software, but keyboards are still used. CSR is very accurate, far more so than the human transcriptionists who were used until a few years ago."

"Translating telephone technology (where you speak in English and your Japanese friend hears you in Japanese, and vice versa) is commonly used for many language pairs. It is a routine capability of an individual's personal computer, which also serves as a phone."

"Learning materials are accessed through wireless communication."

Kurzweil also made some predictions for 2019, 2029, and 2099 in this article, which I will highlight in class if there is time. Here is the citation if you are interested in reading the rest of his ideas. I found the article through a library search.

Kurzweil, Ray. 1999. Spiritual Machines: The Merging of Man and Machine. The Futurist: November: 16-21.

I would also recommend his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" if you need ideas for a good Christmas-break read.

Also search Kurzweil on the internet - very fascinating inventions and ideas!

What do u think technology mite b doing 2 our language? lol

My main impression of Baron's argument is that she does not think that technology such as email, IM, and text messaging has a significantly negative impact on more formal writing skills. If anything is causing a decline in the quality of Americans' writing, it is "the sheer amount of text that literate Americans produce" these days (p 7). For now, I tend to agree with Baron that while technology may lead to some changes in the English language, it probably will not have a major negative impact on writing and language skills. For example, abbreviations such as b4 and U will probably remain unacceptable in formal writing. Even though friends might say things such as "brb" out loud to each other, people probably will always understand that it is not appropriate to say them in a business meeting.

If anything, I think that being able to differentiate between very informal language (texting, IM) and more "normal" language could help people to strengthen their language skills in general. Being able to adapt to different social situations is an important skill, and language plays a large role in this. Developing flexibility of language use and learning what is appropriate for different situations may help us to expand our repertoire of language practices. However, this could heavily depend on the strength of one's language education during elementary-high school, in order to avoid the "whatever" attitude Baron alludes to when someone's grammar mistake is corrected.

While I don't think that texting and IM/email are ruining our language, I do think that such technology will contribute to a shift in overall style. In particular, I think that elements of writing (sentences, paragraphs, overall pieces of writing) will become shorter as we become more accustomed to producing many small messages in a short amount of time. Technology might play a role in this shift to shorter/simpler writing, but I do not think it is the sole factor because American writing in general has undergone similar changes over time up to this point anyway.

The primary negative effect of communication technologies (Baron also discusses this) would probably be its effect on social relationships. IM, texting, and email provide ways to keep in touch with many people, but only on a superficial level with no face-to-face interaction. This does not reflect a change in language itself, but it might become increasingly important to think about as our number of "strong ties" decreases (as Baron mentions).