English · Grey Nicholson

The New Illiteracy of the Internet

2008-01-02T00:54:00+00:00

Kottke writes about a 56-year-old prediction of a positive effect from television on literacy, and notes that predictions for “television” closely resemble the modern web.

A lot of modern communication technology is textual which, a few decades ago, when television and home video were at their height, would have seemed odd. But it turns out that text is more efficient than audio and video. I think this is because basic literacy levels have improved: people are generally expected to be able to read and write text, which has made text-based technology convenient, and has also improved the rate of basic literacy.

This means that lots of people can use text to communicate; it most certainly doesn't mean that those people are using good-quality written language. Ppl r in ur intArnet, revelin in intenshunly wierd gramr. It's reminiscent of an intentional misspelling fad in nineteenth-century America, from which the word/phrase “OK” is suggested to have arisen.

Where, when I was a lad, kids would only use text when writing for their teachers, who would then correct and frown upon misspellings and poor grammar, now children talk amongst themselves using text—internet instant messaging, mobile phone–style text messages and emo blogs being the primary culprits. (Be nice to LiveJournal—it's felling lonley rite now.)

So people get used to using unconventional or incorrect (depending on your viewpoint) spelling and grammar, with the understanding that the receiving party will nonetheless be able to understand the message. (This is compounded by a general reluctance to correct or be corrected.)

Where this compresses communication, for example by abbrev.—making it quicker and generally more efficient—this is not a bad thing. There are a set of essentially universally–recognised abbrev's, e.g. “e.g.”, “&”, & “etc.” etc.; numeral figures and mathematical symbols can also be considered examples. A problem only arises when meaning is misinterpreted.

Some help for English-learners and by way of an example: more often than one might expect, “then” actually means “than”. “More often then one might expect” doesn't actually make any sense and “then” sounds similar to “than”, so most experienced English-speakers can understand the message. “There”, “their” & “they're”, and “to”, “too” & “two” are two other classic examples of words being conflated.

My point is that whereas before the advent of recent technology a smaller number of people had a greater quality of literacy, now a greater number of people has a lesser quality of literacy. It's as if the ubiquity and the quality of literacy sum to a constant.

Thinking Different

2005-02-20T23:57:00+00:00

Part of the front page of the Apple website:

And the equivalent part of the Apple UK and Ireland website:

One problem: here in Britain we have adverbs. Light cannot be travelled - it's intangible; fast cannot be travelled - it's a bloody adjective. (Similarly, happy cannot be browsed.)

But of course this is Apple - it's to be expected; at least they don't use “my” in place of “your”.

en-semantic

2004-09-14T01:31:00+00:00

I don't like being wrong. I like it even less when everyone else is wrong and I can't (or shouldn't) tell them, for reasons of etiquette. I suppose I'm just finicky, which is why I spend quite a bit of time reviewing my own websites, Here and There, enjoying their majesty. Or something.

It's OK when I don't know that a rule is being broken, or that something is just wrong. Unfortunately, I'm also just a little bit curious, so I eventually learn the rules, and then notice when things disobey them.

...which brings me to the semantics of the English language. Read the following:

“Practise” is the verb; “practice” is the noun - think “advise/advice”.
A does not comprise of B and C; A comprises B and C.
“There's” means “there is” and thus cannot refer to several items - it makes as much sense as “several items is...”; “there are” refers to several items (“several items are...”).
“Theirs” means “the item that belongs to them”; “there's” means “there is”.
“They is” and “their is” are wrong; “there is” is right.
“Must of”, as in “It must of been cold.”, is wrong; “must have”, as in “It must have been cold.” is right.

And the classics:

“There” refers to a place; “their” means “belonging to them”; “they're” means “they are”.
“Your” means “belonging to you”; “you're” means “you are”.
“Its” is used like “his” and “hers”; “it's” means “it is” or “it has”.

While we're on the topic, some abbreviations:

“Etc.” is pronounced “et cetera”, not “ek cetera”, and is not spelt “ect.”.
“1 gram” is abbreviated to “1 g”, not “1 gm”; “2 grams” is abbreviated to “2 g”, not “2 gms” - “s” is never added to SI units' abbreviations when pluralising them.

(By the way, feel free to report any cock-ups in the above to me.)

What prompted all this? Well, it was Andrei's use of Practice, practice, practice as a headline. ...trouble is, it's actually valid to use nouns like that. But we all know he meant “Practise, practise, practise”, right?

Remember that just because one can speak English effectively doesn't mean one can write English effectively.