How Twitter has shaped the Written Word
The written word, more than any other single invention, has transformed the human consciousness. As Ong (2002) explains, writing has restructured how the literate mind thinks, not just when writing but also when composing thoughts. The computer is one of the ways in which the alphabet has been technologized. The written word is used extensively throughout the Internet and ‘Web 2.0’ applications, which include chatrooms, virtual worlds and social media. Twitter is one of the most influential Web 2.0 applications, also referred to as a ‘microblog,’ on which more than two hundred million people communicate through the use of the written word (Page 2012). So how has the Internet, especially through microblogs such as Twitter, shaped our use of the written word?
David Crystal, @davcr, and Naomi Baron
express different theories about the Internet and language in their books – Language and the Internet and Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World,
respectively. Additionally, the Internet can be seen as further enhancing the
already democratising nature of the written word, for example @newmatilda.
Finally, the use of the written word can be examined by exploring the different
uses of twitter including the nature of the ‘hashtag’ and ‘searchable talk.’
The written word’s use on computers and
online has a variety of names. Computer Mediated Communication is used broadly,
however, David Crystal (2006) has recently coined the term ‘netspeak’ as a
variation on 'netlish', 'weblish' and 'cyberspeak'. The term originates from George
Orwell’s use of ‘newspeak’ and ‘oldspeak’ in 1984. Crystal in his book Language
and the Internet, discusses the impact the Internet has had on the written
word. He states how synchronous interactions, or ‘real-time’ conversations, as
well as technologically imposed length constraints, such as Twitter’s 140character restriction, cause the most radical linguistic innovations. Although
some people compare ‘netspeak’ to being more similar to speech than writing, Crystal
(2006) says it is, “written language which has been pulled some way in the
direction of speech than as spoken language which has been written down” (p. 47).
Additionally, both Crystal and Baron explore the common fear that the Internet,
and the relaxed standards of language it encourages, marks the end of literacy
and spelling.
Baron (2008) confirms this fear in her book, firmly
stating that ‘bad writing’ is driving ‘good writing’ out of circulation and
that the younger generation genuinely does not care about the majority of
language rules. However, Baron states that this is a natural reflection
of present society, "changing educational policies, shifts in social agendas…
and a commitment to life on the clock", not just a reflection of the Internet
(2008, p. 170). Furthermore, Baron (2005) explores the shifting patterns in the
roles of speech and writing over the past twelve hundred years. One example being that
Shakespeare spelled his own name at least six different ways, an occurrence,
which would be viewed as quite bizzare in present day. Finally, Baron (2005)
states the use of expressions such as '#brb' and '#lol' online are similar to
‘like’ and ‘totally’ used commonly in the speech of American adolescents, a
phenemomen explained as teens have often used spoken language to express
small-group identity.
The written word has a history of being democratising. As Ong (2002) states, “the Greek alphabet was democratizing in the sense that it was easy for everyone to learn” (p. 89). Social media, in particular Twitter, further democratises the written word as it provides a platform for everyone to voice their opinion. It also enables an increasing number of people to become media producers and distributors, as well as consumers (Flew 2008), detracting from the previously oligopolised media production, @rupertmurdoch. These ‘citizen journalists’ are able to access, share and verify information from a range of global sources, as well as to challenge views expressed by the government and mainstream media outlets (Flew 2008).
Twitter is an extremely influential Web 2.0 application, which began in 2006 and now has over two hundred million users, with millions of updates posted every day (Page 2012). Twitter’s format fulfills current society's need for a faster and more immediate mode of communication. User’s main intentions on twitter are daily chatter, conversation, sharing information and reporting news (Java, Song, Finin & Tseng 2009). As Twitter was not initially created for synchronous conversation, there is a lack of coherence when reading posts that are part of a conversation, as ‘tweets’ are posted in the order they are received rather than what a ‘tweet’ is responding to.
The use of the hashtag ‘#’, the prefix ‘@’
and the ‘retweet’ (RT) are also very significant to how users interact on
Twitter as well as the manipulation of the written word. The hashtag is used as
a prefix to indicate a search term, hence, the establishment of ‘searchable
talk,’ a phenomenon that was not present before the invention of computers and
the Internet (Zappavigna 2011). By making a term searchable, it enables other
users to find tweets about a particular topic and participate in the conversation (Page 2012). This enables synchronous conversation about live
events such as the television show Q
& A, which promotes the use of the hashtag ‘#qanda’ by audience members
to create conversation. Additionally, hashtags have been recently utilised in
global movements, either to protest against something or to raise awareness.
Two recent movements that became extremely widespread are #alsicebucketchallenge, to
raise awareness for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and #ferguson, to raise awareness of and protest
against the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. As Page (2012) explains, hashtags are an extremely
powerful mechanism; they “command the potential attention of an audience
within the linguistic marketplace of twitter” (p. 198).
The prefix ‘@’ is also central to
conversation on Twitter, by signaling another user. Retweeting, or ‘RT’ is also
significant in the spreading of information from followees to followers,
another way Twitter enables the dispersing of conversation (Boyd, Golder &
Lotan 2010). Retweeting can also be seen to encourage social actions, similarly
to hashtags, such as donations or demonstrations.
The written word has evolved through its
use on the Internet, specifically on social media sites such as Twitter.
Despite fears that these Web 2.0 applications may be causing a decrease in
language quality, this may be a natural shift as society itself changes.
Additionally, the written word was initially democratising, however, it is even
more so when used on a global scale, enhanced through citizen participation and
the use of Twitter conventions, such as the ‘hashtag’ and ‘retweet.’
References
Baron, N. (2008). Always on: language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baron, N. (2008). Always on: language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baron, N. (2005). Instant messaging and the
future of language. Communications of the
ACM, 48(7), 29-31.
Boyd, D., Golder, S. & Lotan, G.
(2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter.
In System Sciences (HICSS): Proceedings
of a conference held 5-8 January 2010 at Hawaii International Conference
(pp. 1-10) Honolulu, Hawaii.
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flew, T. (2008). Participatory media
cultures. In New media: an introduction (pp.
107-125). New York: Doubleday.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. & Tseng,
B. (2009). Why we twitter: an analysis of a microblogging community. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5439,
118-138. Retrieves from http://link.springer.com/
Ong, W. (2002). Writing restructures
consciousness. In Orality and literacy:
the technologizing of the word (pp. 77-103). London: Routledge.
Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of
self-branding and mico-celebrity in Twitter: the role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181-201.
Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation:
a linguistic perspective on Twitter. New
Media & Society, 13(5), 799-806.
