" The linear thought process of decoding and encoding meanings is subsumed by thought processes that cut and mix ideas. "

If I thought only a minute about this, I'd arrive at the conclusion that the cultivar of both is necessary, either concurrently or alternately. Perhaps this is the first time in history that both systems of thought will be equally honored, thus eradicating barriers to dissemination of information ...

You know....it takes me, a primarily non-linear, spatial thinker much longer to sequence, which makes me rather verbally inconvenienced, but not lacking in orality. (So, in that, I disagree with Ong...and so would have Winston Churchill...and John Irving, and...)

I'll be back as soon as I've done the visual hypertexty thingy completely in my head...and have translates that visual mass into , uuuhhh, words!!

I was just thinking the other day about how thinking is disrupted by the Internet and came across two superb essays. Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicolas Carr particularly addresses the question of how the Internet has changed our very patterns of thought. Twilight of the Books by Caleb Crain considers how book reading is dying and how reading may become "an arcane hobby" of an elite class. Very disturbing thoughts.

really interesting post, ken.

this linguistic idiocracy... the connections between the transformations of language and those of reading: from reading to (merely) scanning also suggest changes in thought. the issue of a watered down language, of watered down reading also imply watered down thinking: and that brings me back to your post of last month and to walter benjamin and the issue his speculations in "art in the age..." ultimately lead to: distraction...

so my question is more of a judith butler question (or maybe a d&g question? ?? ??) than it is a benjamin question: how do we turn these evolvements into humanizing, radical possibilities rather than allowing them to become the "destruction" benjamin theorizes? (what does he say? oh yes it is the epigraph for my first post on blogger: http://mollyponderstheuniverse.blogspot.com/2008/04/blonde-bombshelling-and-other.html)

...anyhow, haven't even started my 2nd cup of java and you've got me thinking -- thanks for kickstarting my thinking-writing for the day! ... oh and, of course: :-)

QFT.

Confession #1: This blog was too long for me to read. Is there any way you could possibly... twitterfy it?

Confession #2: I had to Google "QTF". (I thought it meant Quit Fucking Talking")

Whoooops, sorry!

;)

Quoted For Truth.

Roughly equivalent to saying "word."

The internet equivalent of "Quit f***ing talking" would be STFU.

There is something to be said for brevity. At the same time, you can't shoehorn the thought of a Spinoza, Kant, or Hegel into 140 characters or less.

There are those who employ emoticons as a linguistic crutch. However, are emoticons really all that different from the various ways people qualify what they say in person (body language, explicit qualifications, informality, etc.)?

P.S. - Here are some links to Twitter humor/commentary:

(1) The Odyssey Twittered:
http://mashable.tumblr.com/post/93355398

(2) Newspapers Twittered:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/01/guardian-twitter-media-technology

(3) Nanoblogging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeLZCy-_m3s

hi rkatclu, thanks for the clarification (Google beat you to it, but nevertheless, appreciated). Interesting notion about emoticons not being all that different from body language or, I suppose facial expression, tone of voice, etc. My immediate response to that is, when people communicate online (not counting the use of webcams), they are doing so using the written word. Relying on emoticons to relay intent seems lazy to me (or, as you suggest, a crutch). Of course, this reaction is borne of a writer's vanity, and plenty of times conflicts might have been averted by just swallowing one's pride and inserting the tell-tale admission of irony... ;) I find them annoying as a reader, too, because it suggests my comprehension needs a handicap.

But as our culture of communication moves more and more into the online world, I'm thinking your point is more and more germane to the issues raised in Ken's blog. Mass communication is evolving and not everyone has the vocabulary and the subtlety to use words alone. And certainly the audience does not have the patience to read all the words necessary to communicate that which is more efficiently conveyed non-verbally. Witness my first comment. ;)

Ken, you've used some the words that hit me where I live- bricolage, gestalt(en), and pastiche...

I have a lot of issues with Professor Baron's article because assumptions are made that can be hashed to bits, assumptions that are inimitably sequential, perhaps vertically narrow, when our world is not.

She writes:

"Will effortless random access erode our collective respect for writing as a logical, linear process?"

May I ask 'whose' collective respect? That collective may be a vast minority, and one that doesn't include the respect of dozens of well known and honored dyslexic writers, authors, poets, inventors, scientists, and artists.

And is the intent of a literate society to control, mete out information in a manner that is not natural for huge chunks of the population to absorb? Perhaps the 'effortless random access' evolving methods of communication are more natural for many people, and I also see that as a good thing. Shouldn't the masses choose for themselves? Or is that threatening to those who are more comfortable with closure in communicative efforts?

She continues with: "Such respect matters because it undergirds modern education, which is premised on thought, evidence and analysis rather than memorization and dogma. Reading successive pages and chapters teaches us how to follow a sustained line of reasoning."

But I go with this by Albert Einstein:

"It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe that it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry - especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly."

Of course, Einstein was a man who was a systems thinker whose learning was based on gestalt. He's on a very long list that is typically ignored because there are so many on it who found sequential written language confining, confounding, and utterly inconvenient.

The purpose of language is to communicate. I hope we don't forget that. I think you're right in implying that the bits and chunks and graphics and videos will allow more people access to practical information, 'snippets' that will trigger creativity in those looking for that piece that fits into a schema, and opportunity for all to problem solve using the varied skills of a world population.

But that's the political piece, isn't it? The way we use language is frightfully political. We've forgotten how strict rules regarding the written word have not, even in recent history, served to promote equity... only the kind of equity where diversity is fine if you learn to do things 'my way.'

And I also finally see some intermingling of information from many sides of the imposed boxes. I read several articles/abstracts this week based on one piece of research that were interpreted in/for four different fields...four fields that approach the same issues from different directions with varying vocabulary and never do they meet. But now...those who want or need to can analyze and glean and mix and think and spin again. One giant step forward....

Of course...and now I'll be quiet.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=6gmP4nk0EOE

More often than not, getting a decent grade in classes requires nothing more than taking the massive amounts of information presented in the book(s), lectures, notes, homework, etc and condensing the important information that will likely be on the test. (also recommended is choosing from that information to tailor to what the professor wants.) I think this is one of the most important skills I have learned from my 14 years in educational systems and it is extremely helpful in my daily life. However, the act of doing this ourselves may be on the decline. Ryan's link to the newspaper that is going to ONLY twitter articles is a topic I am rather torn on. I can honestly say that I would probably get more out of reading those 140 word articles than the information that I received today while reading a newspaper the old fashioned way at lunch. On the other hand, if I weren't able to read a newspaper and know how to tell the important information from the filler, I would be on a much lower intellectual position. Will we see the effects of Idiocracy in the future? Not likely. Will we put less value on deep intellectual concepts? Probably. And if you missed the other link Ryan put up I encourage you to check it out, I'm thinking of sending it to my high school English teacher.
The Odyssey Twittered:
http://mashable.tumblr.com/post/93355398
p.s. :)

Perhaps there will still be a fine line between language used in academia and the internet. I cannot imagine a world where professors and academic journals use shortened words and smileys. The language we use on the internet is different that what we use when we are in an academic state. Yes, the formality of language online has changed but I think that we still have a line for casual mode of language. I hope to always have a more serious and formal language when I am learning because the shortened version of English makes things more informal and harder to take seriously.

Such lax standards of how language is being used causes words and there meanings to lose the power and the strength of the language. Not to say that casual language cannot be used amongst friends but even when watching such news as CNN at time the language can be more casual then formal. They are the news and viable such for information they should place higher standards on language. Since it is becoming more and more readily accepted to have lower standards when it comes to languages newscasters are following suit when they should be the ones upholding the standards.

To me the casual language of texting and twittering is a part of the spoken word, not the written.However I do think that constantly writing in such a casual language impacts people more then we think. Several times I have caught myself typing "u" instead of "you" however at a second look I catch it. But as long as people can separate the written from the casual it shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, smiley's do lead to a more brutal and aggressive use of the language in my opinion.

I don't feel the need to be overly critical of how language and communicating is evolving over the internet and social networks. The internet as a whole is a tool that reduces barriers to, and improves the efficiency of communication. It's only natural that communications within a highly efficient network would follow and build upon that nature.

As any followers of this post {or blog} can attest, I am horrible at responding to comments. I did want to offer this article by Nick Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid? When I saw the article the first time, I didn't give it much thought. Now, upon further review, I'm sure reading that article made me more stupid.

I take exception to his stance that privileges "reading" as a normative mode, as opposed to speaking or other modalities, and I wish psychologists would study people in cultures of orality. "Deep reading" presupposes a certain type of linear logic that may disenfranchise those who think in alternative patterns. Of course, many educators don't like this idea, as they feel students should be uniform bricks, not irregular stones. Bricks that don't wear denim.

Language, whether written or oral, is the most powerful form of communication. It comes in an assortment of ethnicities, backgrounds and histories while still remaining relatively universal. Author Marilyn Kinsella declares there are 2 components to the value of language in storytelling that combine to allow the listener to be present within that story. One uses the general outline, then beefs it up with a particular time and place. Some of the most revered storytellers are those that capitalize on all that language has to offer - Nitzche, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky to name a few. I would love to see a twittered version of “Daybreak” have the same effect when stripped down to the bare essentials. The evolution of mass Twitter and SMS use cheapens the meaning and depth behind that language. I’m surprised by how many major news networks are using Twitter – I wonder whether this is to boost ratings by engaging in what’s popular, or because it really is effective. Twitter may be the reformed way of headlining, but I see it as an easier way to take news out of context and cut every speech down to ridiculous sound bites. Having said that, I also believe that in regards to conversation stimulation, these methods can prove effective. Limited to 140 characters, we are forced to quickly determine our main point, rather than undergoing pages of roundabout research.

This is just a step in the evolution of our language. Instant Messaging services such as AIM were created for direct instant communication much like talking to someone face to face. The difference is we need to take that spoken word and put it into a computer and send it on it's way as soon as possible in order for the communication to stay instant and not feel slow like early email. A younger generation will always adapt language in their own unique way and this generation has just adapted it to communicate over this new medium. Does that mean all written communication of bound ot change for ever. No. But it does make way for a new set of slang. We still have old english even though it is no longer the norm. Could this be the future norm, possibly but not likely. Written communication has only strengthened sing the rise of the internet. Until written text is obsolete we have proper english and this new internet slang.

Technology today is made to relay information, opinions, news, etc… as fast, easy, and sort as it can. Yes, language is changing in some form, but there is a distinct difference from posting a tweet or sending a SMS to writing an essay or an article for a paper. In a fast paced society it becomes more and more apparent that the quicker you can express yourself the better off you are. I personally don’t want to read a 4 paragraph essay on my friend’s day, but would rather just see “today was a good day.” But reading a friends SMS, status, or tweet is very different then when I want to read about a new public policy, news, or leisure. When I want to read that I do not want short and sweet, I want well defined ideas and conclusions giving me a complete understanding of what is going on.

I guess when it come down to it I would have to say yes language is changing, but language will not change as a whole. Certain aspects of our lives and communication will be shortened to 140 characters, but there will always be a place for “educational” communication and reading.

The world is not getting better at the moment. :-)