Email Pragmatics: Language in Email Communication - Essay Example

EMAIL PRAGMATICS (SOCIAL NETWORKING AND CYBERLANGUAGE) EMAIL PRAGMATICS (SOCIAL NETWORKING AND CYBERLANGUAGE) Overview Language is an important part of humanity as it serves several purposes. In both the social and academic context, language remains an important phenomenon that cannot be disregarded if social and academic interactions can be complete (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). Language is also a very unique phenomenon that comes with several types and rules. Different people speak different languages and even within the same sect of people using a particular language, there are several rules that govern language usage. Because of this, language creates a learning process for itself, which cannot be overlooked or under estimated if a person wants to make effect and judicious use of language (Ford, 2003). One other interesting feature about language is that the learning of language is almost perpetual, being studied at all levels of education, and ever changing in form and principles. One of the levels of studying and applying language is the focus of the current essay, which is the subject of pragmatic conventions. Pragmatics has been identified to be an important area or level of language that emphasizes on the use of language in a social context (Hacker, 2003). Even though most social interactions take place in a more physical form, involving utterances and speeches, it cannot be denied that there have been avenues by which social interactions and social networking have existed through written platforms. Some of these include the use of letter writing, social media networking and emails. Pragmatics as a social context of language therefore highlights both utterance and text meaning to language (Kasper & Rose, 2001). Because of this, it is valid to argue that all users of language use pragmatic conventions at one point in their communication or the other. This essay will therefore select language in email communication as a case study or typical scenario of pragmatics and stress on ways in which conventions that have to do with the use of pragmatics are often flouted in email communication. The effect of flouting such conventions and why language used in email is so vulnerable shall all be discussed. The language of email communication The exchange of messages between people has been a common practice for ages. When it comes to the use of written exchanges of messages, emails are fast replacing the use of letter writing, both in the business world and other informal contexts. This has created the concept of email communication. Email communication is unique in its own way and rapidly becoming popular for a number of reasons. A key characteristic of email communication is that it has been found to be less formal than the use of written letters (Takahashi, 2001). This decrease in the level of formality is seen whether in terms of writing what used to be the conventional formal letters or informal letters. This is because even when used in the business world as a form of communication between subordinates and their superiors, most of the writing rules that were followed in typical written letters are no longer followed (Kasper & Rose, 2001). This notwithstanding, the fact that email communications have come to make the exchange of messages free flowing and pragmatic cannot be denied. Pragmatics in general As outlined in the introduction, pragmatics refers to the use of language in a social context (Tateyama, 2001). Generally, there are two major contexts that pragmatics fall. These are written pragmatics and spoken pragmatics. In each of these contexts, there are special features that come together to form what is known as pragmatics convention, which serve as rules governing the usage of language in the social context (Kasper & Rose, 2001). As far as spoken language is concerned, it is found that this form of language has several social and regional differences and variations. That is, given the same type of language such as English language, the way that Americans may use this language is different from how the British will use it, just as Australians will use it differently from Africans, all of who may be expressing themselves orally. This makes spoken language have much relation with pragmatics than written language (Takahashi, 2001). If for nothing at all, the people that interact easily form a social sect within which pragmatics may be applied. Other factors that make spoken language more fond with pragmatics is that this form of communication requires immediate feedback and response, where communicators rely on the use of intonation, gestures, stress, rhythm, and pauses in making their points known (Carston, 2002). All of these also have some level of social contextual backing. Regardless of what has been said about spoken language, written language also have its own features and characteristics that make it fit into pragmatics in general. For example, it is known that written language is often restricted and having standardized rules that users ought to follow if they must make meaningful impact in their communication. Some of these rules come in the form of grammar, syntax, sentence constructions, and spelling. It has been argued that because of the existence of these rules, it is very easy to detect a shift from the ordinary use of written language to pragmatics. For example, when a person writes, “Wat ve u dan de whole day?” it becomes very easy to detect this as a form of language used in a social sense as it deviates heavily from rules guiding written language. One other reason that has made the use of pragmatics in writing very popular over the years is that whiles writing, people want to input in their writing, the same level of emotions that they would have done when using their words in a spoken context. An example of this is “I am soooooooo sorry! Pleaaaaasseee forgive me.” The pragmatics in the language of email As noted earlier, pragmatics and email communication are both becoming very popular and common premises in which language is used. Because of this, it is very common to discuss pragmatics in the language of email as an independent topic. Under this topic, it would be noted that pragmatic conventions are easily flouted in email communications under two major bases. The first is when the conventions are flouted deliberately and the second is when they are flouted unintentionally. It is common to see people flout pragmatics conventions deliberately when they are writing in much informal contexts to people they share common social characteristics with (Laurence and Ward, 2005). In a personal experience, I have often intentionally combined a number of punctuation marks in my email correspondence, especially when I am writing to a friend. For example, I can ask, “I hope you will not tell me you will not come?!!” In such situations, I combine a question mark with a number of exclamation signs to express the emotion with which I am asking the question. There are other times also that conventions are flouted unintentionally. This has often happened on a personal note when having to respond to several points at a time. For example, I may write, “Yes I think I agree with you” when responding to more than one issue being raised. Pragmatics in the language of email therefore takes out details in communication. A number of factors can be given as to why pragmatics conventions in the language of emails are easily flouted. In the first place, it seems to have become a generally accepted concept that no one emphasizes much academic credence to emails. For this reason, it is common practice that no one will pay particular attention to such issues of spelling and grammar in email communications. For most of the time, the priority is for the recipient to practically understand the message that the sender is trying to put across. What is more, there seems to be a problem with time and space. Most people seem to have the notion that emails are necessary and present to solve the problem faced with time and space to do critical thinking before producing a piece of letter. In effect, they use the platform of email communication to be as swift and prompt with their written exchanges as possible (Ford, 2003). Once this happens, it is common that basic conventions will not be followed. It must not be said without caution however that there are effects with flouting pragmatics conventions. For example, it creates misunderstanding in messages that are sent and also can lead to a transfer of writing style into much formalized writing such as academic examinations. Conclusion The essay has highlighted the uniqueness of language, identifying it as one of the most complex phenomena of human life. The uniqueness of language has been linked to the fact that language is broad, comes in many different types, important, and has a lot of rules governing its usage. One of the components of language is pragmatics, which refer to the use of language in social context. The essay has explained that pragmatics comes in two sub-contexts. These are spoken and written pragmatics. Each of these also has their own unique features, which must be observed by anybody who makes use of pragmatic conventions. The problem that has existed however has to do with the fact that through both deliberate and unintentional means, rules governing the usage of pragmatic conventions have been violated by usages of language. As soon as this happens, there are a number of consequences that follow. Particularly, the meaning of language becomes distorted, making it difficult for the bearer of a piece of information to be understood in a context in which he seeks to present a message. The essay was narrowed to email communication, where it was found that the worse instances of flouting of pragmatic conventions take place here. The flouting of conventions take place both intentionally and unintentionally but mistakes are mostly caused intentionally because communicators consider an informal social interface between themselves. As far as rules are concerned, this cannot be accepted as acceptable, especially as the essay showed that there are several effects that come with the wrongful usage of pragmatics. A typical effect is that the meaning of a piece of message may be misunderstood, which could also come with its own consequences. In an academic sense, continuous flouting of pragmatic conventions may breed academic impropriety when it comes to the application of language for official purposes. Because of this, it is generally recommended that the scope of social freedom that exists in pragmatics must not be abused in the name of social freedom when it comes to email communication. References Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carston, R. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Ford, S. (2003). “Dear, Mr Shawn”: A lesson in e-mail pragmatics. TESOL Journal, 12, 39-40. Hacker, D. (2003). A Writers Reference (5th ed.). New York: St. Martins. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laurence R. H. and Ward G. (2005) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 80-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More