Always On!

Final Thoughts on Always On

 

In the last chapter, "The People We Become", Baron discusses consequences of being "always on" in a networked and mobile world. The truth is we live in an age of vast information that is easily disseminated--through e-mail, IMs, blogs, personal web pages, texts...we rely so heavily on these technologies that there are major cognitive, personal, and social consequences. 

 

Baron holds that cognitive consequences include reduced productivity when it comes to multi-tasking. Online access and telecommunications has proven to be a huge distraction--both in school and work settings. Workers and students alike wind up spending unnecessary time browsing the web when they should be engaged in their work. After being interrupted by an email, text, or IM alert while working, people often have a hard time getting back to work. Personally, I, myself, find that I waste so much time checking my e-mail, browsing web sites, and calling/texting friends when I SHOULD be doing something as productive as school work. I've come to the realization that I could complete my school work so much earlier if it weren't for these distractions! When I spend a good, solid two hours working diligently on a paper or doing some class reading, I find it particularly rewarding to take a study break and go online...Sure, my "study break" should be about 15 minutes, but I find myself so immersed in, for example, the youtube video I'm watching, I completely lose track of time, and by the time I actually get back to work, it's about an hour later. So much for a study break....

 

 

But it's clearly easy to see how our attention can be so easily diverted from one thing to another, especially where distractions like the internet is involved. I think this is something many people can attest to.

 

When it comes to personal and social consequences, there are far too many to mention. It's definitely part of the human condition to maintain social contact; phones and the internet are the perfect tools for doing so. Baron mentions that people don't want to be alone, naturally, so we find outlets online to fill that void...people log onto AIM, facebook, myspace, for example. The goal, of course, it to satisfy that craving for social interaction, but how genuine and authentic can it truly be online? Online use, especially, can have adverse effects on social skills. People go online to talk, so they won't feel alone, but paradoxically, they are only reinforcing feelings of loneliness and alienation. Real life social interaction can't be done and social skills just can't be practiced if countless of hours are spent lounging around your room and talking to people online. 

Countless teenagers find solace in online chat rooms where they can "make friends"--people with whom they can talk/chat, people who "understand" them. The danger of this, of course, is that such "friends" can turn out to be online predators. Yet even so, how can complete strangers actually be called friends? Go out and make real friends is what I have to say...flesh-and-blood people who can truly be called friends, with real things to say, who can really understand and "be there" in your time of need. 

(Since we're on the topic of "online friends", I'm reminded of facebook and people who brag about having 12,000 "facebook friends", so-called "friends" who they've never seen or heard of before). 

People also oftentimes take the careful time to package their online identities--which may not always be accurate. In any case, it's easy for people to cower behind their computer screens and muster the courage to say things they'd never say in person. But the consequence of spending so much social interaction online is that it detracts from REAL interaction. Sure, maybe people are more bold on AIM or on a text message, but in doing so, they never gain real, legitimate, practical social and personable skills. 

Take flirting for instance. It always annoys me when I hear that someone I know is flirting with someone else through texts or IMs...how real is that? If you really want to flirt with someone, do it in person. It's more meaningful and genuine. I once had a friend who met someone online, and for about one month, they were corresponding through emails, texts, and phone calls. Here's the funny thing--when they actually met IN PERSON--one month later, whatever relationship they had established through texts, emails, and phone calls very rapidly disintegrated. They went on two dates, and that was it. The virtual persona/alter ego they had created had resulted in a skewed image of each other...a lie almost. When they finally confronted the "real" person, well, they were pretty much disappointed. 

All of what was just previously discussed leads to the fact that online (and mobile) interaction takes away the most important factor of human interaction--face-to-face contact. Actual flesh-and-blood encounters generally captures something so much more meaningful and intimate that online encounters NEVER can. 

 

 

In this day and age, we are herded into a landscape where we are increasingly available as communication targets and we incessantly strategize how to control social contact. Personally, I never realized how much I rely on my phone on a daily basis. I call/text friends to find out where they are, what they're doing, what time they can meet up for lunch or to study. Were it not for my phone, I would be completely in the dark...how would I ever find where my friends are so that we can, in fact, meet up? It's also amazing to think how much time is saved by calling/texting a friend...you can easily pick up the phone and in a split second find out that your friend is in the dining hall. Without a phone, you could easily spend an entire day tracking that friend down on campus. Obviously there's a huge convenience factor involved with mobile devices, and since we're always on the go with our very busy schedules, it works out perfectly. 

 

Yet Baron also mentioned that because we are always connected, no matter where we are or what we're doing, or who we're with...we can almost always get a hold of someone, one way or another...be it through a simple phone call, a text, an email, or an IM. This makes it particularly easy for parents to keep track of their kids, or for a couple to be in constant contact with each other. But constant availability isn't necessarily a good thing. Why? Because being "always on" removes a feeling of anticipation. Baron brought up a proverb, "absence makes the heart grow fonder." Parents may lose sight of their kids who are thousands of miles away in college, but when mom decides to call you to catch up, does the sound of your voice compensate for your physical absence? Information communication technologies allows us to be permanently connected, so we can always get up-to-date information on our friends and family. This definitely has its benefits, but I also feel that there's just something incomparably exciting about waiting a year before seeing a best friend or family member. You can spend all hours of the night catching them up, enjoying the other's presence after such a long separation, and this act in itself, I think, is so much more meaningful. Nowadays, however, we have computers and cell phones that would most probably never let that happen. 

 

From all these consequences I just mentioned, it's easy to understand why and how Baron thinks online and mobile technologies are undermining our social fabric. But, according to Baron, it's also undermining our language. As a result of being "always on", we're now seeing degradation in English. IMs and texts are great sources to investigate this phenomenon. I partly think that because texts are character-limited, people find ways to abbreviate words so they can express an entire thought in a single message. It actually struck me when I read that students are using internet lingo, abbreviations, and truncated versions of words in their school work! In all honesty, I have to admit that I am SOMETIMES guilty of the same crime...when I'm taking notes for a very fast-paced lecture class, I'll abbreviate words like "before", "to",  "too", "see", "be" and "you" as b4, 2, c, b, and u. Sometimes, I'll represent "later" as "l8r"--a combination of letters AND numbers (I don't remember where I learned that from, I just thought it was pretty creative when I first saw it).  I'm seeing these abbreviations more and more often online and in texts, and they're taking the world by storm. I say "world" because in Spanish, I've seen "que" represented phonetically as "ke" in texts and IM's. I was even surprised when my own mom texted me with these abbreviations...I'm guessing she learned them from my younger brother. I suppose when older generations are adopting the same lazy use of language as their kids, it's no wonder scholars think language is going down the drain as a result of mobile and online communication.

Sarah Palin and Language

The other day, I was able to find a collection of articles and blog postings on Sarah Palin and Language, a sociolinguistic phenomenon in her own right. I thought this particularly appropriate for our current topic of study. I'm sure you guys might like to see those, along with
other interesting stuff. Here are the links:

Enjoy! =)

Maureen Dowd, Sarah’s Pompom Palaver
NY Times op-ed with delicious humor: from speaking in tongues in Wasilla to channeling Clueless

Language Log has featured a series of posts on the Governor from Alaska
Also Outside
Affective Demonstratives
Palin’s Accent

Daniel Libit, Palin’s Accent Takes Center Stage
Politico dissects the politics and sociolinguistics of the Palin accent

Mr. Verb, Palin’s Accent and Syntax
One big verbal trainwreck?

The Neurocritic, Maverick Maverick Maverick Maverick Maverick Maverick
A mavericky transcript… Includes a bonus, The Sarah Palin Show!

John Schwartz, Who You Callin’ A Maverick
Where the unbranded term actually comes from

Steven Pinker, Everything You Heard Is Wrong
Steven Pinker takes on the “myths,” including that the debate was the real test (an interview is harder). Language Log reacts to Pinker here.

Mr. Verb, Palin and Language
Trying to diagram a Palin sentence. That’s some syntax!

Using Fairclough's Analytical Framework

Hindu and Buddhist rituals herald appointment of 3-year-old living goddess in Nepal

I was looking through articles in the Orlando Times (I thought it'd be interesting to find news that piqued my interest from back home), when I came across a link to "Weird News" that cross-referenced with local, national, and global news. One of the first articles that immediately grabbed my attention was titled "Hindu and Buddhist rituals herald appointment of 3-year-old living Goddess in Nepal." My immediate reaction was one of confusion, and I thought, "why in the world would that be considered 'weird'? If anything, I thought it intriguing and it certainly catered to my personal appreciation for cultural differences--of course, this may be due to the fact that I AM studying Anthropology.  ^_^

At any rate, I read the article and decided to analyze it using the dimensions Fairclough presents. Of course, even without analysis, the article makes for a good, interesting, and enlightening read, but nonetheless, we can apply Fairclough's framework in order to appreciate it for its linguistic merit! 

Before I forget, the article can be accessed through this link: 

 http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/offbeat/sns-ap-as-nepal-living-goddess,0,2830043.story

Okay...on to the analysis: 

This article is written as a means to inform within the public sphere.

(I was a little unclear as to how to distinguish between presuppositions and representations, as they seem to overlap in some cases (at least in my mind)...but until I can figure it out, I'll just mention both as I see fit)

Representation:

The author does not assume the reader to be familiar with this particular social practice, its ancient traditions and customs, or that there is necessarily a "panel of judges who conduct ancient ceremonies" as part of the appointment process. In fact, he provides this information to readers, and even goes on to include a breakdown of the process, as well as the series of tests the child must undergo before she can be appointed the status of goddess. This includes age, physical imperfections, horoscopse, etc. (I thought horoscope was a fascinating test, because at least in Western society, it doesn't seem to be taken seriously. Because of that fact, horoscope may be fore-grounded more strongly). Certainly, however, the author gives a rich description of the girl's costume and ornamentation, as well as the nature of her lifestyle during her temporary "reign" as goddess. All this description help capture an accurate sense of what it's all like; I think a detailed account of the process is provided here mainly because the intended audience is, in fact, foreigners (such as Americans) who are not acquainted with Hindu and Buddhist religious customs and traditions, nor are familiar with this specific ceremonial process. In this case, it is necessary to include this specific information. The author translates "living goddess" into the native word "kumari", obviously a word we wouldn't know. 

In terms of what the text excludes: the author mentions that the girl is a reincarnation of the Hindu deity "Taleju"--are we to be familiar with this deity and her role within Hinduism? There is also a brief mention of Nepal's recently-abolished monarchy--but why it was abolished and what it was like remain unknown to the reader. (We certainly see how the author has control over what he wishes to omit). Furthermore, the author touches on "international and Nepalese laws on child rights", which is violated by the tradition of appointing a new living goddess.  He brings up these "laws", but we do not necessarily know what they entail. 

Presuppositions:

Presuppositions are certainly a part of intertextuality. As Fairclough mentioned, they serve to establish represented realities as convincing. In a broader context, the article presupposes the social practice of a deeply rooted and historical religious tradition and the rites, rituals, and ceremonies that surround it. 

The author's diction is of primary importance. He mentions "living goddess", which implies readers' assumed understanding that goddesses, as divine beings, transcend human mortality. By inserting this word "living", we get the sense that this so-called goddess reincarnated. Also, it is stated that the girl comes from the "impoverished Shakya goldsmith caste"--but this information is given short shrift. Of course, readers are already assumed to be aware of what the caste system is, but why must she be selected from this particular caste? 

The text is primarily active, but has several instances of passive voice:  "the goddesses are wheeled around on a chariot pulled by devotees" and "she will be worshipped by Hindus and Buddhists."

Nominalization:

Evidence of nominalization is clear, as presented first in the article title: "Hindu and Buddhist rituals..." The author imbues concreteness (personification) upon the abstract concept of "rituals", and it is essentially this word that does the performance; it "heralds." Another example of the above: "tradition violates both international and Nepalese laws on child rights" ("tradition" being the subject and performer of action). 

Fairclough's discussion of summaries, formulations, quotations and reactions can also be applied to this article. A direct quote is given by the girl's father, who expresses both his sorrow and pride for his daughter's newly-attained divine role  (He utilizes a form of "cohesion" discussed by Fairclough). The article summarizes the rituals and ceremonies behind the appointment of the "living goddess", as well as her prescribed role during her instatement as the living goddess.  

The Language of Politics

I was browsing through the internet today and found a website about Political Propaganda, and how its success hinges on the careful manipulation of words. The article's essential claim--with which Orwell can certainly agree--is that subversive agencies are giving the highest priority to the corruption of the English language. These "'semantic forgers'", all in the course of promoting their "odious" political correctness, are at work in our schools and colleges, in central and local government, in publishing houses and throughout the mass media.  

Here's more of what I found (Note that some parallels can be drawn between the below elements and Orwell's criticisms): 

Elements of Propaganda

Word approval – Whereby certain words or phrases are given special prominence and 'respectability' by their frequent usage in influential circles and the mass media. People are thus apt to adopt such usages themselves on the grounds that 'what's good enough for the likes of them must be alright.' One need only observe the influence of popular media figures in promoting everyday use of certain words or catch-phrases. Note also how certain profanities once wholly unacceptable in polite company have now become commonplace in the mass media and, as a result, in everyday social intercourse. 

Word disapproval – Whereby certain words or phrases expose the user to disagreeable social reactions like personal abuse, loss of preferment and even of employment, and other forms of victimisation. The offender is put under more or less punishing pressure to 'mind your language' and conform; as witness the rampant 'political correctness' lobbies in education, publishing, the mass media and politics. Such pressures now begin at kindergarten level. 

Repetition – Given enough repetition the 'in' word or phrase will soon replace its predecessors, if only because people don't like to sound 'odd' or behind the times. 

Euphemism – Disguising whatever is intrinsically ugly, repulsive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable behind more attractive, less offensive, or neutral labels. At the everyday level this is just a matter of simple politeness and civilised conduct; but in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and 'social engineers' the euphemism becomes a sinister device to deceive and indoctrinate the public into accepting things which are intrinsically repugnant or contrary to the national interest.

Typical examples are 'gay' for sex pervert; 'love-making' for casual copulation; 'multi-cultural' for mongrelised; 'under-privileged' for parasite; 'entrepreneur' for swindler; 'negotiated settlement' for surrender; 'subsidiarity' for subordination; 'freedom' for anarchy; 'non-judgmental' for indiscriminate; 'value-free' for unprincipled. 

Censorship – May of course go well beyond mere word or phrase disapproval to suppression of certain kinds of publication and of certain writers or speakers by officialdom, academics and the media. Some forms of censorship are of course benign; for example when applied to pornography, national security and libellous material. The credentials and motivation of the censors determine whether or not censorship is benign or malignant. 

Popular appeal – Whereby the propagandist's message is 'packaged' or presented in a way likely to disarm criticism. This is designed to exploit the 'feel-good factor' among the all-too-gullible general public, using popular entertainers and radio/TV soap-operas as vehicles for multi-racialism, feminism, homosexuality, promiscuity, federalism, etc.

The popular appeal element of such propaganda is therefore an artful compound of bogus philanthropy, cloying sentimentality, euphemism and superficiality; all designed to 'help the medicine go down' all those gullible throats. But, in particular, the 'multi-cultural' campaign amounts to the same thing as telling us that adding dirty water to vintage wine produces an exciting new cocktail.

9/29

Political and Persuasive Speech:

First and foremost, I was struck by how critical Orwell was in his article. He reproaches writers, especially political writers, for their unnecessarily verbose, embellished, and complicated style of writing. Essentially, political writing is BAD writing. Personally, I never thought such writing was a bad thing. Sure, such writing may be at first difficult to understand, but I usually associate it as a mark of intelligence and sophistication--scholarly writing. According to Orwell, however, such writing is ridden with inflated speech and complex euphemisms; it's resplendent with mixed images, pre-fabricated phrases, needless repetition, and vagueness.  It is convoluted, complicated and obscures a writer's meaning. After all, it's imagery and meaning that a good writer should always pay heed to. 

It really made me re-examine the way I write as well. Orwell stresses simplicity--and I never tend to write simply!

Orwell identifies several faults found in political and persuasive speech: dying metaphors, operators or verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words.

Here is an excerpt of political discourse, and it is scrutinized using Orwell's faults:

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

The Rhetoric of 9/11: President George W. Bush

Address To a Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks

Faults (to name a few):

Orwell might find fault for the use of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism--

"Follow in the path...to where it ends"--might be considered pretentious and very vague

 ..."of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism"--Orwell finds fault in the use of these words; he indicates that such words signify what is undesirable and may also have varying, unspecific meanings.  

"..in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies"--sounds poetic, but in the case of political discourse, it's completely pretentious and lacks meaning; what exactly is being referred to, what and where is "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies?" 

"...every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, every necessary weapon of war"--has repetition and parallelism, but again, according to Orwell, this is "bad writing." This part is vague, pretentious, and misleading--How much is "every"? What kind of "diplomacy", "tool of intelligence", "instrument of law enforcement"? 

9/24 Activity Day!!

The Activity Day planned out for today was very well-done...I enjoyed the video clips that illustrated various forms of speech play and verbal art. 

It was also interesting to see the different play languages the class came up with, and how each "play language" had a different system of rules that defined its usage. Though these were only "play languages"--a linguistic code derived by a small set of rules and applied to an existing language--on a larger scale, they say something about languages in general: a variety of languages exist today as authentic, legitimate means of communication because of rules and regulations that govern their usage. By this definition, all languages are valid. This was a concept we discussed in a previous Linguistic Anthropology class. 

The discussion on jokes was probably my favorite part--we realized that a lot of jokes, especially dirty ones, are culturally defined. "That's what she said" is a phrase that caters to American humor, but probably wouldn't be understood humorously in another country, say China, for example. Nonetheless, we still find that the speech play found in jokes is prevalent across the world--through humor, all cultures find a respite from the seriousness of everyday life. 

In terms of proverbs, we found that a lot of them eventually become outdated and fade into obscurity. Riddles were fun because they use speech play to test human cognitive abilities. 

I actually wish we had more time to play word games at the end of class. We don't immediately realize that word games like "Catch Phrase" serve a particular function in language usage. Since the whole point is to describe a word WITH other words, we are not consciously aware that the game emphasizes application and practice of the metalinguistic function of language! 

Doing Things With Words--Yet Again

I ran into a friend from class at a party on Saturday night, and we randomly started discussing how we do things with words. It's pretty obvious, as it's done on a daily basis, but it's something that's almost subconscious, taken for granted even.  It's hard to imagine how else we could possibly communicate, were it not for our capacity for language. The formation of words to express thoughts and feelings is something truly unique to humans, even though countless of other animals have their own means of communication. None of it, I think, comes even close to our ability to use words, nor is it just as efficient. We sat there and chatted for a good half hour, and all the while, we were building rapport. Later that night, I thought about how critical language is...most of our day-to-day interactions center around our use of words, and all our relationships are a result of the very words we exchange with people.