Diablog: More language about language…

 

Okay, those of you peeking in for the first time on this language thing, here’s some background:

 

The Raven recently kicked off a diablog about language usage.  He’s not at all happy with the use of abbreviations in written language – specifically, LOTR for Lord of the Rings (and he’s said so twice).  Both Jan at Secular Blasphemy and Rob at Emphasis Added have both chimed in; Jan recognizes the application without denying that the learning and use of formal language is important, where Rob feels it’s a tidy mind that can reason and employ the breadth of a language.

 

Raven’s comments in my blog posting (wherein I express my appreciation for the need of both formal and informal communication) indicate that I may not have detailed my rationale fully.  So, here goes more details, including some questions and observations about the nature of the concern…

 

No, all communication is not ICQ (referring to abbreviation or compressed language used in ICQ).  The medium and context dictates format.  Professor S. F. B. Morse had limitations within which he was compelled to work; as a response, he developed Morse code.  ICQ and other networked communications engender similar limitations, resulting in a different format of communications.  The medium of communication predicated a compressed or condensed format for the transfer of meaning.

 

The internet, chat and blog are not newspaper, book, print-media; it's defined by both the blogger and the user.  Within that venue are persons who by way of sharing a similar culture have similar expectations about communications.  They grant license to each other to compress meaning into symbols.  Hence, Lord of the Rings becomes LOTR.

 

Sure, these same abbreviations show up in print/hardcopy; but that's a reflection of the response of print to pop-culture.  If Art imitates Life, and Art = expression + medium, then medium reflects Life as a subset.  There will be bleed-through of pop-cultural response because the medium can’t escape its role as mirror to society.

 

That's not to say there's not a place for abbreviation-free communication.  Again, medium and context dictate.  (Even within those areas of communication which we expect to be abbreviation and compression-free, we still see the use of “terms of art” to convey meaning in brevity, or the use of symbols.  Look at a lengthy contract sometime and note that the “party of the first part” becomes “Party 1” throughout the rest of the document for the sake of brevity.)

 

Note other aspects of language which have flexed to accommodate our changing society, in part because of an increased understanding of the nature of communication and in part because of a globalization of language.  Information Mapping® techniques, developed by Robert Horn, streamlines and improves the effectiveness of communication through condensation; these techniques are based on research indicating that humans digest information most effectively when “chunked” into an optimum size.  Consequently, more and more businesses and students use this condensed communication for greater effectiveness; its impact may be memetic in nature and spreading.  Globalization’s impact on language is pretty clear: how many words do we use regularly that came from other cultures (most having been acquired within the last 100 years)?  In some cases, the words are much more effective than the English words we would otherwise have used.  Other languages have similarly been impacted by the “encroachment” of English into their language.

 

In fact, Mr. Horn has been working on the development and promotion of “visual language”; this may be a naturally extension of both the Information Mapping® techniques and the use of symbols in place of language.  It’s analogous to the development of objects in programming (a language itself).  This may encourage further integration of non-English, non-text components into communications.

 

An essential part of this entire argument (defense?) is the concept of post-modernism's impact on communications.  Post-modernism is a state of existence and a reflection of human emergence; it is encompassing, holistic; it’s not as prone to absolutism as its predecessors, Modernism and Traditionalism.  It encourages bleed-through of communication forms across multiple media for this reason.  Being post-modern means a state has been attained where all methods of communications may be equally accessible and viable.

 

Note and compare these definitions of social problems from traditional and post-modern viewpoints (Prof. C. Kennedy in re: Edelman):

 

The traditional, rational, positivist perspective:

Social problems appear, they exist in a single reality, and attempts are made to solve the problems.

 

The post-modern perspective:

Social problems are constructions; they involve multiple realities which can be understood only by understanding who is framing the issues and what their stake is in the definition.

 

Is the concern with language usage a problem as defined from a traditional viewpoint, or a post-modern viewpoint?  Is usage of formal language really the only solution if it is at all possible the concern is a construct?

 

Perhaps one of the challenges for certain readers of condensed language is that it appears less to be interaction with a subject than with a symbol.  Is it an innate retraction from something that could be a mechanized agent’s response versus that which is a fully-interactive subjective human response?

 

And can the uncertainty of deep structure and meaning behind symbolic language be a frustration for traditionalists?

 

Perhaps another reason for frustration with abbreviated language is a rejection of the post-modernist anti-work ethic; playful behavior with language is seen as a failure to invest an appropriate amount of work into the effort of communication.  This may again be a manifestation of traditionalist values employed in this case against a postmodern venue.

 

Another unconscious reaction to compressed language may be a response to a perceived juxtaposition of the social ladder.  It has been observed that in organizations, senior staff members are prone to ignore grammatical standards in writing e-mail, while middle managers are careful to employ grammar.  Observers theorize that senior staff feel their time is too valuable to expend the effort on grammatical revisions (something once reserved for low-level assistants preparing dictated and typed copy), where middle managers must be certain of clarity and subsequent buy-in from both senior and junior levels.  Perhaps this upending ubiquity of use is perceived as a violation of a privilege reserved for senior staff members (senior members of society, by extension).  It’s more accurately a reflection of the same demands (which have affected only senior staffers in the near-past) now affecting pervasively all organizational (and societal) members.

 

What ever motivation(s) for the concern, these facts remain:

 

§         Situation (necessity and availability) dictates the medium;

§         Medium dictates the format;

§         Context comes with implied licenses that may vary;

§         Society has changed expansively along with its expectations and licenses.

 

  4:13:56 PM    comment []

BIG SCOOP...

A certain Fortune 100 company this morning announced to its enterprise a sweeping set of measures to slash expenses, citing as reasons:

"...the external economic environment has worsened.  The threat of war in the Middle East, combined with the abrupt disruption in the supply of oil from Venezuela has driven the price of oil upward of $30 per barrel.  The prices of naphtha and natural gas liquids - ethane, propane and butane - have also risen substantially, with U.S. natural gas itself now well over $5 per million BTUs..."

(Note: naptha, ethane, propane, butane are used in the plastics industry.  See how wide spread this impact can be?)

The economy's not getting better.  In fact, it's going south in a big way.  A bobsled ride to hell.

If this company with connections to Washington recognizes the contribution of the Venezuelan crisis to continued economic sluggishness, why can't the Bush Administration?

If this same company has frozen all hiring (and may likely shed jobs), how is it the Bush Administration can propose a slow-moving and highly dilute stimulus package?

If this same company can also see the need to raise prices to offset the rising costs of raw materials, where exactly will any tax cuts net a cash increase to the consumer?  Any and all cash from cuts will be spent on the same goods consumed today because of inflation.

Somebody (hello? Mr. Rove? Mr. Evans?) better get a grip fast.  And you, dear reader, better be counting and saving your pennies.

  1:16:00 PM    comment []