Why do we speak differently on the internet?

When talking to people online, (specifically online text not videos) and mostly on social media sites such as Facebook or twitter, or talking allowed with tweets and statuses, many of us take up a different way of speaking to how we do in real life. Obviously you can't properly write they way you speak because of barriers such as there isn't really a visible tone to a written word, unless marked out by punctuation like an exclamation mark to indicate a raise of tone (shouting) or a maybe a question mark with could imply an inquisitive, stretched tone (a question). People also decide to spell words differently or abbreviate them or just use different words altogether as supposed to what they should in person. Let's delve deeper into this...

A key difference between talking online and in real life is that you aren't physically there on the internet, social networks are a place of freedom, we're free to say what we think and like, just as Facebook asks "What's on your mind" each time you log in. Someone may be ultra-shy in real life but posts on Facebook/twitter a hell of a lot, this it's because it's their free space to say what they like without the pressure and constant judging that real life can bring. These people may seem completely differently online, they sound confident and aren't scared to say 

what they feel and that's because these sites create the effect that people have something to 'hide behind'.

A common thing we see in online text is abbreviations or clippings of words, one of the most common examples of this being the word 'U' as in 'You'. There are several reasons that people use this in online speech, an obvious one being that it's quicker to type assuming the receivers actually know that it's supposed to be 'You' which is totally dependent on the context – this is basically the lazy route. This clipping comes around from the fact that the word 'You' and the letter 'U' are both pronounced and said in the same way, thus, if the U's capitalized in a sentence (It RARELY is nowadays) then it should still sound the same e.g. "How are U?".  Another reason people clip and abbreviate words is simply because they can providing it still makes sense, it's also more of a casual thing and something you say to your friends (if you're someone who uses 'U' in this way, which I for one am not). There are also examples we can look at where the words are put together and turned into an acronym, using clipped words in them, such as 'WUU2' (What U U 2), meaning What are you up to. The reasons behind this are similar to the last being it's a lot quicker to type 'WUU2" than the full sentence.

I may have not gone over EVERYTHING as there's tonnes of reasons why someone speaks differently online, whether that be the way the type and spell the actual words or the amount they say or even how they act. The internet can be another world to some people to get away and become someone different and people sure do treat it that way 'wen they spell lyk dis'.

                                                                                                                                                       By Luke Putland.

Chav talk, u sure about dat?

Let's not deny how we think it looks silly when we see someone writing like 'dis', instead of 'this', or 'tru' rather than 'true', unless of course you are one of these people, in which case you're probably now thinking 'woteva'. Like tattoos and piercings, it's not seen as socially normal way of being by everyone. It can be frowned upon, people might think you're typical teen trying too hard to stand out. This is what's known as divergence.  I've heard people talking like this as well, like 'alright bird can you lash me da...' or something along those lines, then I can't always get my head around the rest. It's something sounding very out of place standing next to my friends and I. I mean, we talk 'chav like' sometimes, but it's on purpose. And it's to make a point of being stupid. And I say the word 'chav' because this is the word a lot of people use to describe this way of talking. But is fair that people who may seem to be making a point of being independent, such as those who dress differently, listen to alternative music, make a point of being socially awkward, and the list goes on, are immediately labelled as this? If you don't think so, Professor of Psychology and Linguistics at the University of California, Howard Giles, knows exactly how you feel. He researched what's known as convergence. He noticed that after he moved to America, his dialect would shift to American when he was asked by his English relatives about American TV, music, and stuff like that. He realised that this change was, on a subconscious level, done to show to his family that he was "no longer a recent immigrant to the United States, but now a fully fledged American citizen who has embraced many American ideals". Or so Bryan B, Whaley and Wendy Samter tell us in their book Explaining Communication. Researcher Henri Tajfel, British Social Psychologist, also tells us in his book Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, based on his Social Identity Theory that 'the "intergroup extreme" is that in which all of the behaviour or two or more individuals towards each other is determined by their membership of different social groups or categories.' What Tajfel is basically saying here is a lot of your behaviour is determined by your friends. So, could it be that that apparently so loud and boisterous, perhaps foul mouthed teen speaking may not be trying to stand out and be judged as a whatever they want, but instead just desperately trying to fit in with everyone else? Or could it be that we are too quick to judge? And at any cost... Do you really care?

 

So, my fellow chavs, when you talk lik dis, we know exactly what you're doing, know your little secrets and how you just want to fit in. You've been sussed! Or have you?

By Liliah Gerrard

How important is when and how a child acquires language?

Children's acquisition of language is a particularly interesting and extensive topic which intrigues me in both the way it is acquired and at what age. For me, how children learn, develop and correct themselves is just incredible in itself. Thinking of learning a foreign language now, at this age, where everything is so alien, daunts me.     But then I think when we are only a year or so in age we begin to pick up words from those around us, often ever so simple nouns such as 'mummy' or 'cat' and somehow begin to adapt and apply these to particular situations.

 

If all children learn language in the same way regardless of the actual language they speak it leads me to think the main cause of lacking developed language skills would be due to whether or not the child was allowed to learn language at the supposed vital age. Eric Lenneberg (1960s) said that between birth and puberty it is essential that children acquire language. Individual cases such as that of feral children, one being a girl known as Genie, who was locked up until the age of 13 and 7 months, show consequences of this not occurring. Genie emerged unable to talk with little sign of comprehending any vocal sounds and unable to understand those around her. It wasn't just actual words that she seemed to have difficulty in picking up but also phonological sounds in themselves, further detailed in an article 'The Linguistic Development of Genie', it is a prime example in supporting the thought that if language is not acquired at the given age will someone ever be able to develop to the same extent as someone who has acquired the language.

 

As for how the language is picked up, well, children often make mistakes when learning. For example they may say 'I goed there' instead of 'I went there', this is a case where there's an irregular verb being used. The child is simply taking the patterns they've seen in other situations and applying it again here. 'I walk there', however, uses the regular verb 'walk' so when transferring it to the past tense this simply becomes 'I walked there'. Therefore it is easy to see why this generalization has been made; no one sits a child down and explains all these irregular words to them because it would be overwhelming at a young age. Instead through corrections by adults young children are able to adapt their language use and slowly pick up the correct way of speaking and applications of complicated grammar such as irregularities. Another aspect of how they learn their language is in the want of something, for instance they may point to their bottle as an indication of being hungry and say 'Thankyou', implying there are aware that it is the word required to say after they receive something from another person. These ideas are detailed in the article '10 Language Mistakes Kids Make That Are Actually Pretty Smart'.

References:

http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/bofman/ling450/linguistic.pdf

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31648/10-language-mistakes-kids-make-are-actually-pretty-smart

Caroline Burtenshaw

Formal versus Informal,which is better?

Humans have developed two different styles of language whereby one is used for social events and the other for formal meetings. So why have we done this?

First of all, we need to identify what 'formal' and 'informal' means:

Formal – 'Done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; suitable for or constituting an official or important situation or occasion.' (Oxford Dictionary)

To break this down to a simpler translation, formal is wrapped by using all rules of the English Language including grammar and, if writing, punctuation.

Informal – 'having a relaxed, friendly, or unofficial style, manner, or nature: "an informal atmosphere"; "an informal agreement.' (Oxford Dictionary)

To simplify this meaning, informal is using the English Language without applying one or more rules.

So when should we use informal language?

In social situations, peers or colleagues mostly won't judge how you speak or write. Content is more important rather than the expression and pronunciation. In fact, some interactions may break Maxims and other general rules – such as the politeness theory – for humour, to bond with listeners. So informal language provides stronger relationships between friends and co-workers, but what about for bosses?

If you were in a job interview, and you spoke to the interviewer in a relaxed manner, slouching off on language rules, the interviewer would almost certainly misjudge you because they would not expect an informal appearance. But why? Perhaps it is that the listener has to know you personally before you can speak freely. Maybe you have to break them slowly into how you speak, such as breaking few rules at a time, gently easing them in to your style of manner. It could be that it just isn't appropriate to the situation.

But when is formal used?

I have personally found that formal language is used by people who have a working relationship, such as between employer and employee. Or teacher to student. This is because both parties have to show their professionalism to each other, perhaps to advertise their knowledge not just in the subject, but also in their language skills.

In condensed writings, such as science journals, language is severely restricted as the concentration of verbs and articles is increased. No adjectives are used, nor adverbs. Because of the lack of description, the writing becomes plain, and impersonal. Whilst this is perfect for scientific and fact-based articles, this shows nothing about the author other than knowledge on the subject. If I were to write up a conversation, and skip all fatic talk, all adjacency pairs and all adjectives and adverbs; if I applied the correct rules of language and it still made sense: I'd end up with a boring transfer of information in a complete and impersonal transaction.

But let's just skip up a second. What if we swapped this over and used informal language in a scientific journal? If maxims were broken, the paper would cause confusion. It could be too long or short, not enough facts or even untrue! So it is safe to say that formal language is required in the field where facts are needed to be expressed swiftly without confusion.

So if we actually need formal language in some situations, do we really need informal?

If at social gatherings, or on social network sites, people used formal language, without showing personality, then friends would find it almost impossible to socially bond. Without any personal style to the language, it would become lame and too similar to others making it far more difficult to bond.

Though there are times when a formal approach is used on networking sites, as I have written this blog formally because I do not know who will read it.

The use of adjectives and adverbs can alter whether a sentence is formal or not, as can breaking a maxim or any rule in speech or writing. This creates flexibility between distinguishing formal and informal, and allows there to be a happy medium, making a whole range that extends from formal to informal.

This extract from Joos' 'Five Clocks' explains how language is used, and the formal column shows that only when language is 'precoded', as in social situations, is it informal. The other situations all used formal structures, though exceptions could be made.

He goes on to explain that sensitive material that is more sentimental and casual takes an informal approach because more thought goes into content rather than structure. In consultative language, every care is taken to make sure the sentence is perfect in pronunciation, accuracy and precision. In frozen and formal, the speech is monitored for length to make sure the correct amount of information is passed, as well as accuracy of punctuation  in written presentations.

(http://ww2.odu.edu/al/jpbroder/jpb_on_joos_1976.pdf)

This shows that formal takes on most situations, however precoded or social situations take up most of the use of speech, therefore balancing out the distribution of both formal and informal.

So therefore, whilst both formal and informal have their uses, they have their times and their applications, they are both needed to support speech and writing to suit various situations. The huge range between means that there is always an appropriate way of communicating with language, and so from this, it would be impossible to say that one is better than the other.

 

By Andy Tomline

The Language of Love

By Rhiannon Francis

"Sergeant Pepper's Lonely, Sergeant Pepper's lonely" – The Beetles.

 

Ever read through the lonely hearts adverts in the back of the newspaper and thought... are people for real? Ever considered the differences in men and women's language in the adverts? Well I haven't until now, when I noticed a few interesting differences in the lexical fields and language men and women use in the adverts to make themselves 'appealing' to the opposite sex. You wouldn't think the whole 'men are from Mars women are from Venus' metaphor to really mean anything until you dive into the world of language and surprise ourselves.

With men and women's language as a whole in social situations do we actually use different language to our differing gender, to please each other; from my research I pose the theory that language and communication mean more to women than to men, men's goals in using language tends to include facts and statements whereas women prefer to include people, interests, and feelings' men aims tend to be about getting things done, using Professor Tannen's gender theory I put these to the test of dating adverts.

 

The pairing of Tannen's that most likely occurred throughout the adverts was that of "intimacy vs independence" in the lonely hears ads women use statements such as "spend quality time together" and "fall in love with" (Friday ads adverts 4070078 and 4070794) using the intimacy part of Tannen's theory their lexical fields are based on 'love' and 'togetherness' much what you would expect from a women, however this is then contrasted with the independence of men using statements such as "looking for attractive female any age, seeking fun" and "looking for someone to have fun times with" (Friday ads adverts 406297 and 406298) showing that men are looking out for themselves, independence. Using 'fun' as an adjective they are accentuating the fact this is not serious business no no, unlike the women's choice of "love" and "together" closely paired with synonyms of attachment and affection, it is clear that the adverts are divided through the language used.

This follows onto research by Lakoff the theory that "women use more empty adjectives"  this is most certainly demonstrated throughout lonely hearts adverts as women want to make themselves look as interesting and as attractive as they can. They use adjectives such as "genuine" (Friday ads-advert 407015) and "nice" the aim of these are based on looks and personality what they think men are looking for men on the other hand feel no need to include such adjectives they list and get straight to the point "blue eyes, brown hair,. 35" (Friday ads- advert 07109) this links back to my earlier point of 'mens aims being about getting things done' I think this is a perfect example of where this is replicated, there are no empty adjectives or lexical fields of love it is simple language getting straight to the point.

 

This is where men's authority in language also takes place as they do not feel the need to communicate with wasted language, this brings me onto Proffessor Robin Dunbars research of themes I men's language and what they find important in dating adverts and how this differs to women. He researched over 1000 lonely hearts adverts and from them deciphered men and women's language into categories and henceforth importance:

Men's:                                                                                              Women's:

1.  Attractiveness                                                                           1.) commitment

2.  Commitment                                                                             2.) social skills

3.  Social skills                                                                              3.) resources

4.  Resources                                                                                4.) attractiveness

5.  Sexiness                                                                                   5.) sexiness

(bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/lonelyhearts.shtml)

This research theory again links into Tannen's pairings of intimacy vs independence. Women's goals in their language in the adverts suggest commitment is number one priority and mens therefore suggests the independence the fact they rate attractiveness so highly in the language of their advert.

 

Henceforth men and women's language used in the dating adverts does differ just as their language does in social situations and conversations its the goals of each gender is to what fires these differences in both.