The Explosion of Language

Language used to be a slowly evolving thing—a mass lazily floating along, gathering a word here, a phrase there. But today the evolution of language could more easily be compared to a high speed train creating an air vacuum along the track it travels.

Hatchen and Scotton describe globalisation as “a profound interchange of cultures—a communication revolution” (Hatchen & Scotton 2002, p. 3) which directly relates to how words and phrases are being revolutionised in our postmodern world. Modernity tells us to embrace change and creativity, which must then include text talk.

Almost all of this is thanks to the internet, and a direct product of globalisation. Pieterse Nederveen says in his article Globalisation: Consensus and Controversies that “globalisation is being shaped by technological change” (Nederveen 2004, p. 9). This is shown through the fact that despite slang’s long history in the English language, text talk has now made the phenomena explode.

New words often used to be attributed to particular people, like Shakespeare. Now, with the flow of information picking up speed with incredible force, it’s almost impossible to trace who invented which word or phrase. The best that we can do to keep up is the Urban Dictionary, a publication documenting new colloquial words and sayings as they evolve.

Hatchen and Scotton say that “the media flow of information and news throughout the globe will have a greater impact than education on the world’s ability to understand its problems and dangers” (Hatchen & Scotton 2002, p. 7), meaning that text talk’s main medium (social media) is integral to globalisation’s hegemony.

As the internet makes new trends go viral, protecting intellectual property rights is an ongoing struggle and copyright laws are continually changing to accommodate the accelerated growth of technology.  Text talk phrases—popular acronyms like LOL and ROFL—spread like wildfire and new trends are hard to contain or track.

Globalisation in theory should be about enhancing and improving communication, but as the picture above illustrates, excessive use of slang and text talk actually sometimes inhibits communication. Colloquial lingo further alienates certain groups because there is only a certain amount of the population who can understand them.

Nederveen again comments on communication, saying that "a thread that runs through all globalisation episodes and discourses is increasing connectivity” (Nederveen 2004, p. 9). While this is technically true, has this so-called connectivity actually improved our ability to transmit information to each other?

References:

Image 1: Hunsdale Talbot, D 2011, ‘Book Reviews & the Written Word’, retrieved 7 August 2013, <http://www.writtenword.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/slang.jpg>.

Lady Luck Enterprises, 1998-2013, ‘All Down Under’, retrieved 7 August 2013, <http://alldownunder.com/australian-slang/>.

Mabillard, A 1999-2011, ‘Words Shakespeare Invented’, retrieved 7 August 2013, <http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html>.

Nederveen Pietrse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global melange, Rowan & Littlefield, pp.7-21.

Net Lingo, 1994-2013, ‘Net Lingo’, retrieved 7 August 2013, <http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php>.

Urban Dictionary, 1999-2013, ‘Urban Dictionary’, retrieved 7 August 2013, <http://www.urbandictionary.com/>.

iEverything, iEverywhere, iAnytime

Having never done a media unit before, my understanding of globalisation comes from a background of health and human development. Globalisation to me is a combination of increasing interconnectivity and interdependency between nations, largely as a result of advances in technology.

This definition is by no means exhaustive, and scholar Giddens defines globalisation as, “the intensification of world-wide social relations, which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa" (cited in Rantanen 2005, p. 6).

As shown below, defining globalisation has the potential to get messy.

The iPhone has thrived on the global market, infiltrating almost every developed country and also many developing countries. Promoted by celebrities, the iPhone has quickly become the ‘thing’ to have—the ultimate mark of someone cool or ‘in’. Pennycook suggests that “it is hard to see how we can proceed with any study of language, culture, globalization, and engagement without dealing comprehensively with popular culture” (cited in Coupland 2013, p. 205), illustrating that products like the iPhone that popular culture promote are intrinsically linked to what we value as a homogenised society.

According to business journalist Luke Stangel, Apple has sold 600 million iOS devices (iPod Touches, iPhones, iPads) to date, making the brand easily one of the most popular in the world. Certain applications, or ‘apps’, as they are known, have been designed specifically for the iPhone, such as Snapchat, increasing its exclusivity. By purposely making Apple products incompatible with other PC devices and programs, the company is on the one hand increasing people’s desire to buy them, and on the other, more cynical hand, making people angry.

Has the iPhone really brought us closer together by providing ten different ways to contact the same person simultaneously, or has it just replaced real communication with "quasi-interaction" (cited in Rantanen 2005, p. 10), as scholars Giddens, Thompson and Tomlinson suggest? Has it supposedly made the need for face-to-face interaction redundant? Many parents certainly seem concerned with how much time their children spend on electronic devices, often the iPhone—something that has resulted in numerous cases of cyber bullying.
But that’s another story.

Scholar Thompson proposes that “mediated quasi-interaction is for the most part monological rather than dialogical” (cited in Rantanen 2005, pp. 10-11). This means that all the so called ‘interaction’ we get through avenues like social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) are actually largely one way; a dissemination of information, rather than true interaction that benefits both or all participants. Although communication with the iPhone does seem easier, is it truly better and more fulfilling?

References:

Apple iPhone 4S ad featuring Zooey Deschanel-Rainy Day 2012, YouTube, Appleadsfull, retrieved 31 July 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWoCppNmapQ>.

Agerbeck, B 2005, Staring at Statues, retrieved 31 July 2013, <http://leeji.wordpress.com/>.

Cyber Bullying 2008, interview, 60 Minutes, 13 April, retrieved 31 July 2013, <http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/liambartlett/444908/cyber-bullies>.

Rantanen, T 2005, The Media and Globalization, Sage, London, pp. 1-18.

Stangel, L 2013, ‘14 Eye-popping Apple statistics from WWDC, told in millions, billions and trillions’, Silicon Valley Business Journal, 31 July 2013, <http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/06/11/14-eye-popping-apple-statistics-from.html?page=all>.

Introduction

Hi everyone,

My name is Lil Williams and I'm from Warrnambool, Victoria. I am currently studying Professional and Creative Writing at Deakin University, Waurn Ponds. I have just come back from an exchange trip at Clemson University, South Carolina, United States. I undertook ALL 215 to learn more about the media and hopefully give myself a better chance of getting a job at a television station one day.