Text-Messaging and Orality - Essay Example

Text-Messaging and Orality: "IMHO a nu form of Communication, lolz" In a 1969 interview with Playboy Magazine, Marshall McLuhan precociously suggests that, "electronic media is enabling us -- indeed, compelling us -- to grope toward a consciousness of the unconscious, toward a realization that technology is an extension of our own bodies" (McLuhan, 1969, p. 4) We can see the sagacity of McLuhan words as our evolving technological communication devices, emphasize mobility and connectivity. This connectivity does not apply to the external world but indeed many features are designed and desired for their ergonomic conformity. The cell phone is perhaps the single most ubiquitous feature of communication technology and according to the CTIA over 82% of Americans own one. Its ubiquity is not only due to its overwhelming ownership but by its very nature considering that neither a computer nor a land-line phone can be carried and used so easily. This facile manipulation of technology hints at McLuhan's comment. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of those cell phones have text-messaging capability. Text messaging as a phenomenon has gained attention from academics and critics primarily because of the proclivity of its users to employ "creative" grammatical and linguistic constructions. Its harshest critics claim that it will, or already has, led to a corruption of language. Indeed its pliable and dynamic structure does allow a manipulation of formal grammatical and linguistic rules that would be difficult to parse in formal essays, such as this one; its function in a civilization that has long been inscribed by writing fulfills a much different role than essays, or letters- though its effect on language might be inedible and perceived even in those forms. Text-messaging and related channels represent a syncretism between oral and written forms of communication, and while it lacks the formal purity of traditional written forms of communication, it maintains its own separate aesthetic and poetic qualities that emphasize a heavy reliance on context, mnemonic deployment, and efficiency. By analyzing the physical nature, functional and literary features of text-messaging the oral features of text-messaging will be revealed, understanding of course that in the final analysis its essence as a textual form of communication in a hypertextual society remains regnant. In attempting to outline the structural features of text-messaging and related conduits of communication such as instant messaging, it will be juxtaposed to the features of orality that are relevant. Consider Edouard Glissant's quote, "Oralityis inseparable from the body in movement" (MacNeil, 2007). We understand text and the printed word to be primarily outside the body, distinct from the body and its author. Spoken word or talk is understood to be generated from within the body and indistinct from the author. Text-messaging straddles this interior/exterior boundary. The device on which one types or texts undeniably lies outside the body, its reception as well is mediated by a device outside the person. This is an important distinction as one of the salient features of oral communication is that it is received immediately and without explicit and conscious mediation, insofar that the reverberation of sound, the movement of air is not interpreted into words or speech until it is well into the ear canal, and though we recognize the source of the sound, its compilation occurs internally (Ong, 1982, pp. 32-33). To some degree this is quite different from the structure of text-messaging, insofar like other textual forms of communication, it is understood that the interpretation occurs on the page, in the visual field. However, in considering the intimate and tight connection between text-message and text-messenger there remains some features of the bodily coextension of orality. The cell phone's mobility and sizes bridges the communication barrier imposed by other devices, such as computers, telephones, even paper. Someone can interact with and use their cell phone in close quarters further tightening the bodily connection between text-messaging and the messenger. Its function in interpersonal communication also resembles particular features of oral communication, specifically the concept of "chatting." Chatting can be defined for our purposes as spontaneous and unguided talk. This is sometimes referred to as purposeless, and with regards to the talk's intentionality it may serve no specific purpose, but it is a vital social and cultural tool for establishing and maintaining personal relationships. Chatting is not the only feature of text-messaging that resembles oral interaction, but indeed in contradistinction to the chat is the "factoid." By factoid, I mean the quick revelation of an essential piece of information, that requires little context to process, for example a text with the time and place of the faculty meeting being held later that day. In the chat is primary mode is designed to establish a personal connection with the interlocutor, often times such texts between friends are heavily contextualized, referring to events or persons that are gestured at rather than narrated. In speech theory this type of gesturing is referred to as "phatic," insofar that the primary type of information that is exchanged as little to do with the actual words being said and more to do with characteristics of the speakers themselves (Elbow, 1985, p. 284)The factoid, though it lacks a pretext, the words in the missive are meant to be read and remembered-a response is not even necessary, except perhaps the messaging equivalent of a nod-"k." What the chat and factoid modes of text-messaging share is the absence of an initializing context setting framework. Imagine, if text messages began, "I am sending you this message in order to inform you about the time and place of the faculty meeting that you are scheduled to attend" Rather they do not begin there is no introduction, usually; there is just the conveyance of information. Such an introduction would look as out of place as if this paper began without one. Of course many oral forms of communication have introductions, formal lectures, speeches, court proceedings, news reports; but the function of text-messaging lends itself more pliable to the function of a phone call with a friend, or a brief wish of consolation by a colleague, effective and mutually understood. The literary and linguistic features offer a number of points of departure for our analysis. One of the most stringent critiques of text-messages deals with the unorthodox grammatical and lexical usages. The political implications of this debate are somewhat beyond the scope of this paper; however, this debate is not unrelated to the distinctions made between the perceived progressiveness between primarily oral cultures and primarily post-oral cultures. In oral cultures since, nothing can be "looked up," and is reliant on notoriously inconstant memory, oral cultures are considered primitive, immature and the invention of writing is considered an evolution or even more strictly, a replacement of oral culture (Ong, 1982). This derision towards orality is recapitulated in the debate over the supposed "corruption" of language via these new forms of communication. Walter Ong in Orality & Literacy discusses the nature of mnemonics in oral culture, which helped to facilitate the memorization and communication of oral narratives. Such mnemonic formulas can occur as contractions of metaphors, which help to relate the characters, events or places in stories in easily recallable and regular formats. Using the example of "clever Odysseus" or "whale-road" to refer the sea are formulas, which allow units of meaning to be passed along stably. This mnemonic linguistic structure is ubiquitous in text-messaging language. "OMG," "lol," "IMHO" are all contractions for passing along elements of surprise, humor, and opinion that are almost universally recognized in English based text messages, and even some non-English text based messaging. However, in an interesting poetic development, showing the evolving nature of secondary oral culture (Ong, 1982) is the uses of phrases such as "lolz" or "lollercats," which are hybridized combinations of various modes of talking, i.e. the pluralizing of an acronym, the arbitrary transformation of a acronym into a compound noun. In an example of how secondary oral culture is permanently and indelibly affected by the invention of writing, consider the intentional misspelling of the word "teh." The word is "the," however the deployment of an intentional misspelling is both reminiscent of the vagaries of the "QWERTY" keyboard and its facilitation of typing errors and a sarcastic jab at those who would deride the subculture for its lack of erudition and refinement. Moving away from these linguistic examples, the orality of text-messaging is further reinforced by the technological advancement in text-messaging software. Most if not all text-messaging capable phones and devices have attached smart typing software, examples of which include, T9. This smart typing software allows a user to just type in a single number that contains the one of three letters that the user is trying to spell with and guesses based on the series of numbers which word the individual typing is trying to spell. This composition style resembles in part the composition of speech, insofar that while speaking an interlocutor does not thinking of every syllable and is moving on to the next word before he or she is finished with the first. Moreover, the receiver is not necessarily paying attention to every syllable and is cuing in on the important or essential syllables. Sometimes, in composing those text-messages the software gets it wrong, just like a speaker mispronounces or a listener mishears. The importance of "getting in right" is an essential feature of writing, especially formal writing, which does not resonate in spoken forms of communication. The adherence to formal rules of composition, orthodox spelling, and grammatical regularity are key elements to maximizing the potential of clarity and understanding. This is in part due to the socializing and politicizing influence of education and society and is also in part due to the nature of written text as it is separated and removed from the author, it must stand on its own. Thus, if a writer is interested in having her or his words understood then she or he must try to conform to commonly accepted forms of syntax and semantics. This requirement is not required in many forms of oral communication, especially of one-on-one communication. In the final analysis, it must be seen that the typed nature of text-messaging forever regulates it to the post-oral cultural which makes it existence possible. However, in text-messaging, instant messaging we can begin to see the destabilization between the perceived gap between text and speech. The notion of speech is that it is performed rather than inscribed and totally irreversible nature of speech (Elbow, 1985, p. 285). With a text, regardless of how intimate or close the tie between a person and a person's phone the performative nature is blanked out by the screen and the regular shape of the letters. As to irreversibility, there is certainly element of that when one has sent a text-message to someone they did not mean to, or worse yet sends it to someone they meant to, with often disastrous results. In this way we all struggle to communicate with each other, whether it is written or spoken, ttyl. Bibliography Elbow, P. (1985). The Shifting Relationships Between Speech and Writing. College Composition and Communication , 283-303. MacNeil, C. (2007, Winter). orality. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from University of Chicago: Theories of Media: http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/orality.htm McLuhan, M. (1969, March). The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan. (P. Magazine, Interviewer) Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality & Literacy: The Technologizing of the World. London: Routledge . Read More