Why Has Language Changed So Much So Fast? ‘Because Internet’(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Why Has Language Changed So Much So Fast? ‘Because Internet’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/books/review-because-internet-understanding-new-rules-language-gretchen-mcculloch.html
60 comments
All the factors you mention are true of course, but I'm not sure any of them really explain it. In my mind the Internet is something like a skate park for language, where you have this global infrastructure for developing, rewarding, and disseminating new tricks.
Just increasing the volume of people writing books and letters doesn't get you K5 or 4chan.
Just increasing the volume of people writing books and letters doesn't get you K5 or 4chan.
New tricks? I feel like in the past, everyone had language tricks. Speaking in fun ways, clever one liners and turns of phrase of the type Mark Twain or Churchill would employ were commonplace. People didn’t have videogames, facebook and other stuff to amuse themselves, or express themselves through. They found ways to do it through language.
Just pick up any book that captures how people spoke in the 19th and first part of the 20th century. Language was sport.
Just pick up any book that captures how people spoke in the 19th and first part of the 20th century. Language was sport.
The written word is only part of it.for example, the self imposed constraints of the twitter can increase the need to pack more into one message coupled with the ability to add an image creates weird selective pressures on language.
Earlier histories of communication changes, particularly JoAnne Yates, but also James Beniger and Elizabeth Eisenstein, note (along with societal impacts) the stylistic shifts in writing precipitated by technological changes.
Telegraphy promoted telegraphic style, typography promoted cliche and stereotype, the press itself both vernacular and literacy, along with notions of authorship as opposed to (classical) authority.
Telegraphy promoted telegraphic style, typography promoted cliche and stereotype, the press itself both vernacular and literacy, along with notions of authorship as opposed to (classical) authority.
Separating actual language from things like orthography is important here. I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change.
In what way do changes to the orthography not constitute changes to the language?
orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language.
which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.
>orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems.
And that era was a primitive, oral tradition, era. Just because something emerged later doesn't mean it's not as deep, or even more important, than what was there previously. Else gestures and groans would be even "deeper" than language (they are with us for hundreds of thousands of years before language).
Also many would argue that orthography is not just "what font you use for writing code", but has deeper connections with the language (historical and etymological for one, orthography gives us hints about the meaning and etymology of words).
And that era was a primitive, oral tradition, era. Just because something emerged later doesn't mean it's not as deep, or even more important, than what was there previously. Else gestures and groans would be even "deeper" than language (they are with us for hundreds of thousands of years before language).
Also many would argue that orthography is not just "what font you use for writing code", but has deeper connections with the language (historical and etymological for one, orthography gives us hints about the meaning and etymology of words).
So you don't speak anymore?
It's not just because orthography emerged later, but because it's entirely parasitic upon actual language. It's simply a representation, so the font metaphor is entirely appropriate. The representation can be changed in arbitrary ways that don't really affect the underlying structure.
It's not just because orthography emerged later, but because it's entirely parasitic upon actual language. It's simply a representation, so the font metaphor is entirely appropriate. The representation can be changed in arbitrary ways that don't really affect the underlying structure.
also, when talking about modern communication, as the TFA says, it's all written.
Text is king, people don't talk on the phone any more, we text each other. I think I type at least as many words as I speak every day, and on some reclusive days, many, many more.
And because people infer emotional content from subtle cues in text, orthography is important now.
Text is king, people don't talk on the phone any more, we text each other. I think I type at least as many words as I speak every day, and on some reclusive days, many, many more.
And because people infer emotional content from subtle cues in text, orthography is important now.
> also, when talking about modern communication, as the TFA says, it's all written.
You don't talk to anyone?
You don't talk to anyone?
I have been known to text my girlfriend when she's sitting next to me. She does the same.
That's a fair point, although I think that writing has been with us for so long that we can no longer say that it's something we haven't adapted our language to. Think of it this way: when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? That is probably a different mindset from the one people who can't read are in. Plus, many times orthography has to do with how the word has evolved from a different language.
> when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down?
Not really, actually. To illustrate, if someone asked me what "diarrhea" means, I would answer quickly that it's having a stomachache and runny shits, and it would be an adequate definition, even though I would have to take a moment to figure out its spelling and even then I won't be certain.
Not really, actually. To illustrate, if someone asked me what "diarrhea" means, I would answer quickly that it's having a stomachache and runny shits, and it would be an adequate definition, even though I would have to take a moment to figure out its spelling and even then I won't be certain.
I stand corrected, that's good counterexample.
>when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down?
Interesting hypothesis.
I don't think I do, and my assumption is that most other people don't either?
I learnt to speak well before I learnt to read and write. The process of speaking without any knowledge of the letters was deeply embedded in my brain.
People that are unable as adults to read or write, or have severe impediments to reading/writing in the same way that I do (e.g. dyslexia) don't speak any differently.
If I try to, I can picture how my spoken word is written down, but I'm pretty sure when I'm talking in a more "autonomic" fashion I'm not really picturing the words?
Interesting hypothesis.
I don't think I do, and my assumption is that most other people don't either?
I learnt to speak well before I learnt to read and write. The process of speaking without any knowledge of the letters was deeply embedded in my brain.
People that are unable as adults to read or write, or have severe impediments to reading/writing in the same way that I do (e.g. dyslexia) don't speak any differently.
If I try to, I can picture how my spoken word is written down, but I'm pretty sure when I'm talking in a more "autonomic" fashion I'm not really picturing the words?
That's actually a very good point. The way I see it, although I may be wrong, is that people that have difficulties in reading/writing are a minority, at least in developed countries. Thus, they are nevertheless exposed to a way of speaking that is mainly influenced by the majority, who are influenced somehow by the written word.
On the other hand, what strikes me as a contribution of Internet to the language is our capacity to communicate through videos and pictures. Which means that our vocabulary is narrower. I don't have to be so elaborate when describing my room; I can just take a picture, and tweet it.
On the other hand, what strikes me as a contribution of Internet to the language is our capacity to communicate through videos and pictures. Which means that our vocabulary is narrower. I don't have to be so elaborate when describing my room; I can just take a picture, and tweet it.
Orthography doesn't affect underlying structure of language. It's a meta-representation layer. Again, this doesn't mean it isn't interesting, but I'm not going going to say "Oooh, people are writing sentence in English which don't start with capital languages, what an exciting language change." Because it's an orthographic change, and not a language change.
Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.
>Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.
For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe.
We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowings from other languages). All kinds of continuity is lost if you "switch" orthography en masse (instead of organically).
And it's more like using guitars or synths, or B-3 vs Rhodes to play the same melody, than mp3 vs magnetic tape. The timbre when you change orthography is not the same -- something most poets, writers etc, would be quick to point out.
For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe.
We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowings from other languages). All kinds of continuity is lost if you "switch" orthography en masse (instead of organically).
And it's more like using guitars or synths, or B-3 vs Rhodes to play the same melody, than mp3 vs magnetic tape. The timbre when you change orthography is not the same -- something most poets, writers etc, would be quick to point out.
It's more tied to which 19th century prescriptivist happened to have more influence on your side of the Atlantic. Before them, English orthography wasn't even expected to be consistent. Switching orthography en masse through particular prescriptions being adopted by schools in actuality changed the spoken language very little. The new tendency to ignore those spelling rules has also changed the spoken language very little.
Moving to consistent spellings obscured the origins of English words maybe as often as it illuminated them.
Moving to consistent spellings obscured the origins of English words maybe as often as it illuminated them.
That seems a poor example.
'normal' writing v text speak or leet speak would seem to be a better example?
'normal' writing v text speak or leet speak would seem to be a better example?
>I'm not sure language itself has changed at a significantly different rate than in the past. Internet communication environments do favour changing orthographic norms, which is still interesting, but not the same thing as language change.
Orthography is just the spelling part of the language.
But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster).
There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak").
And since english is the dominant web/movies/pop culture language, even more change has incurred in smaller languages, where turns of phrase and syntactic forms from english adopted wholesale by younger speakers ("anglicisms").
Orthography is just the spelling part of the language.
But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster).
There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak").
And since english is the dominant web/movies/pop culture language, even more change has incurred in smaller languages, where turns of phrase and syntactic forms from english adopted wholesale by younger speakers ("anglicisms").
I find this fascinating. I'm learning German at the moment, and the traditional "y"-sound for the letter "j" is not used in words borrowed from English ("jeans", "jogging", etc). And there are so many words borrowed from English!
Also, I know German people who find it easier to have conversations on some subjects in English, even between native German speakers. I can't work out if this is the equivalent of chefs having to learn French; the language of technology is English, so if you want to talk about tech, you need to learn English. Or whether the world's language is becoming more Anglicised and so it's just easier to use English for modern conversations.
Also, I know German people who find it easier to have conversations on some subjects in English, even between native German speakers. I can't work out if this is the equivalent of chefs having to learn French; the language of technology is English, so if you want to talk about tech, you need to learn English. Or whether the world's language is becoming more Anglicised and so it's just easier to use English for modern conversations.
> But there's a lot of change to the vocabulary because of internet (new term adoption and foreign word travel are now much faster).
Do you have a source for this?
> There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak").
So there are new styles which appear which impose additional constraints upon language (e.g. doge speak). Such things have arisen at previous points in time (different poetry styles).
Again, I'm not saying that the things you point to aren't interesting or aren't worthy of study. But I think calling them 'language change' is a mislabelling.
Do you have a source for this?
> There are also several new syntactic forms (e.g. in memes etc) that might still appear "out of the language" for the more conservative, but are inevitable destined to become part of it as the generations grown with them mature (and they are already all over even "traditional" print media, books, etc. -- even bizarro forms like "doge speak").
So there are new styles which appear which impose additional constraints upon language (e.g. doge speak). Such things have arisen at previous points in time (different poetry styles).
Again, I'm not saying that the things you point to aren't interesting or aren't worthy of study. But I think calling them 'language change' is a mislabelling.
Oddly enough, Lane Greene of The Economist 6 days ago argued that language by and large has not changed so fast, despite the Internet, citing the same book.
The Intelligence podcast 2019-07-17, near the 14:08 mark. https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY2...
I have not read the book, I'm surprised it (or maybe just its title) is involved in making two opposing cases.
The Intelligence podcast 2019-07-17, near the 14:08 mark. https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY2...
I have not read the book, I'm surprised it (or maybe just its title) is involved in making two opposing cases.
There are online forces that prevent language change. It's easier now than ever to have access to the language produced by vast numbers of ordinary people and to police it.
It's also easier now than ever to self-correct. For instance you can use a search engine to find the proper term for anything imaginable, so there is no need to introduce unnecessary words. (Most people who introduce new words do so because their vocabulary and access to material is lacking, not because they have invented or discovering something as of yet unnamed by anyone.)
People participating in online forums are now more keenly aware than ever of their own dialect, because they have ready access to large numbers of people from other regions. I think this will have the effect of globalizing language, through the expunging of unnecessary words in local dialects.
It's also easier now than ever to self-correct. For instance you can use a search engine to find the proper term for anything imaginable, so there is no need to introduce unnecessary words. (Most people who introduce new words do so because their vocabulary and access to material is lacking, not because they have invented or discovering something as of yet unnamed by anyone.)
People participating in online forums are now more keenly aware than ever of their own dialect, because they have ready access to large numbers of people from other regions. I think this will have the effect of globalizing language, through the expunging of unnecessary words in local dialects.
I heard the same podcast and the argument is actually the same as this line from the article:
"“One type of writing hasn’t replaced the other,” McCulloch writes, taking care to emphasize that the situation between formal language and internet language isn’t zero-sum."
It's just that The Economist made this division much more explicit, and used it as the basis for their argument while the NYT relegates it to a single line at the end of the article...
"“One type of writing hasn’t replaced the other,” McCulloch writes, taking care to emphasize that the situation between formal language and internet language isn’t zero-sum."
It's just that The Economist made this division much more explicit, and used it as the basis for their argument while the NYT relegates it to a single line at the end of the article...
Its interesting- at first blush I would think that the internet would slow down language evolution by linking together communities in a way that prevents that natural genetic drift of languages between nearby towns with limited intertown travel from happening. Instead, the constraints and form of the medium has created an explosion in linguistic evolution and growth. What an exciting linguistic time to be alive!
Yes.
What an exciting linguistic time to be alive and the best you can muster is 'yes'? How about an 'undoubtedly', 'most assuredly', or a good old pirate 'yarr'.
Homogeneity is an important component for change, because changes need to be adopted by a critical mass of people before they can be considered part of the language. The homogeneity of the internet helps speed the process of change along tremendously.
Some Instagram celebrity could make up a word, and by the end of the week, 100 million people could start using it. No author from 100 years ago had that kind of reach or influence.
Some Instagram celebrity could make up a word, and by the end of the week, 100 million people could start using it. No author from 100 years ago had that kind of reach or influence.
This brings up a larger point about culture and shared experience.
I remember being in high school in the late 90's and reading OpEds about how the internet was going to diminish varied viewpoints since we would all be getting our information from the same sources. Keep in mind: this was around the same time that there was an Internet Yellow Pages so the thought was a small selection of sites plus "global" access would lead to this phenomenon.
Flash forward to today. With Twitter, Netflix, Pandora etc etc you can create your own stream of media that is unique to you. Or you can create your own echo chamber on Facebook. I wonder what it will look like 10 years from now for teenagers from different parts of the US. Will they have any kind of shared references?
I remember reading that something on the order of 100 million people watched the finale of MAS*H. It made shared experience so easy vs today. Then I also think of the time before newspapers or radio and realize that shared experiences across millions of people is probably only a recent phenomenon. E.g. if you were from a small town in medieval Europe you probably had a totally different set of legends/stories etc from the next town over.
In other words, I'm very curious to see where these trends take us.
I remember being in high school in the late 90's and reading OpEds about how the internet was going to diminish varied viewpoints since we would all be getting our information from the same sources. Keep in mind: this was around the same time that there was an Internet Yellow Pages so the thought was a small selection of sites plus "global" access would lead to this phenomenon.
Flash forward to today. With Twitter, Netflix, Pandora etc etc you can create your own stream of media that is unique to you. Or you can create your own echo chamber on Facebook. I wonder what it will look like 10 years from now for teenagers from different parts of the US. Will they have any kind of shared references?
I remember reading that something on the order of 100 million people watched the finale of MAS*H. It made shared experience so easy vs today. Then I also think of the time before newspapers or radio and realize that shared experiences across millions of people is probably only a recent phenomenon. E.g. if you were from a small town in medieval Europe you probably had a totally different set of legends/stories etc from the next town over.
In other words, I'm very curious to see where these trends take us.
Tom Scotts tie-in for the book: 'why typing like this is sometimes okay.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS4X1JfX6_Q
Not terribly relevant, but about 20 years ago I noticed that a Canadian visitor to our UK home opened every conversation with the word "so". It sounded extremely strange to me, and I really didn't like it.
Now, 20 years later, I find I begin nearly every conversation with the word "so".
Now, 20 years later, I find I begin nearly every conversation with the word "so".
You were right 20 years ago :)
I hate it when people do this as it sounds super condescending. Literally talking down to someone like you would a small child that needed to be taught a lesson.
I think starting a thought with “So,” is some unholy mix of pseudo-California valley talk (not that valley) and upper middle class liberal arts in-speak.
I hate it when people do this as it sounds super condescending. Literally talking down to someone like you would a small child that needed to be taught a lesson.
I think starting a thought with “So,” is some unholy mix of pseudo-California valley talk (not that valley) and upper middle class liberal arts in-speak.
So this might seem weird, but there are many people who do not at all feel that way. I can't even begin to imagine what feels condescending about someone using "so" as a filler word.
For people with a bit of social anxiety, it can serve as an easy and comfortable lead-in to share a thought when they can't think of a better way.
For people with a bit of social anxiety, it can serve as an easy and comfortable lead-in to share a thought when they can't think of a better way.
I think if you read your reply with and without the “so”, you’ll see what I mean.
Your second paragraph is probably one of the reasons people do it but it’s also the reason it come off passive aggressive, which when disagreeing with someone sounds condescending.
Your second paragraph is probably one of the reasons people do it but it’s also the reason it come off passive aggressive, which when disagreeing with someone sounds condescending.
I included it in my reply to see what you thought of it :)
I hadn't considered it in the context of disagreement; I think I can see how that could rub people the wrong way.
I hadn't considered it in the context of disagreement; I think I can see how that could rub people the wrong way.
[deleted]
books like this always seem so superficial. the internet did not create people’s want to play with language. it maybe acted as a catalyst, but the fundamental nature of humans being playful with language has always been around. i learned this through an interview with noam chomsky. he mentioned that the fastest moving languages are usually the more local, village or tribal like languages, that these people are very playful with language because they aren’t bound by rules. it was the introduction of national languages like german, french, mandarin, etc. that slowed the evolution and playfulness of languages in those regions, which have many dialects that are sort of dying out.
Pidgeon, spoken in alot of the islands nations, is used as a bridge like language for local dialects. IMO its the first example of what this book is referring too.
The word is "pidgin", and don't think this is really a good example of that. These language features are being used by native english speakers to communicate with other native english speakers. A pidgin is not normally used to communicate between speakers of the same language.
Note that some languages that are collquially refered to as pidgins, aren't (e.g. Tok Pisin).
Note that some languages that are collquially refered to as pidgins, aren't (e.g. Tok Pisin).
I think Tok Pisin is referred to as a pidgin quite officially. That's what Pisin in its name is.
Tok Pisin is classified as a creole, not a pidgin. While its origins go back to a pidgin, hence the name, it is no longer a pidgin.
[deleted]
Yeah kids talk funny nowadays!
Not really,... it's always been like that with children.
It is disturbing how many adults do it, trying to act 'cool' and talking like that.
Not really,... it's always been like that with children.
It is disturbing how many adults do it, trying to act 'cool' and talking like that.
Why is it disturbing? Sometimes we pick up colloquialisms unconsciously, and besides, one cannot and should not try to resist societal change indefinitely.
Well, when I do it, it's mainly to annoy my kids...
Well, I beg to disagree. People keep resorting to the same tricks they've been using for ages to command and control each other. In that sense, nothing has changed: language is a promise we make to each other on a future yet to be seen. Since I read Language in Thought and Action, by S.I. Hayakawa, I see all things related to language in a different way.
If you want to find more, I posted some notes on the book here: https://alvaroduran.me/language-in-though-and-action
Edit: orthography corrections. Which is still language, though ;)
If you want to find more, I posted some notes on the book here: https://alvaroduran.me/language-in-though-and-action
Edit: orthography corrections. Which is still language, though ;)
>Or make that “hey!!!!!” Exclamation points, unlike the period, have so far escaped obsolescence in customarily punctuation-free online interaction; if anything, they’ve been cheapened by overuse,
That's a point I personally disagree with. My impression is that exclamation points typically serve as indicators of an older, rather than younger author, especially if they're included in a joke. If someone sends you a meme or copypasta that ends in an exclamation point it's almost always boomer humor. "Because Jill's real name is Randy!" etc.
That's a point I personally disagree with. My impression is that exclamation points typically serve as indicators of an older, rather than younger author, especially if they're included in a joke. If someone sends you a meme or copypasta that ends in an exclamation point it's almost always boomer humor. "Because Jill's real name is Randy!" etc.
I'm in my early 30s and I usually use "!" to convey genuineness. For example "That was so helpful! Thank you!" or "It was great to see you! Thanks for dropping by while you were in town!"
>"It was great to see you! Thanks for dropping by while you were in town!"
They didn't already know you enjoyed seeing them? Saying things like that after the fact instead of to the person's face as you said goodbye is more "old person behavior". You sound like a Facebook user.
They didn't already know you enjoyed seeing them? Saying things like that after the fact instead of to the person's face as you said goodbye is more "old person behavior". You sound like a Facebook user.
I've been annoyed lately by Americanisms creeping into conversation in my little corner of the world. Silly things like "come with" instead of "come with me" and "it's cold out" instead of "it's cold outside". The internet is a major influence by Hollywood hasn't lost its place.
To anyone who’s interested in how language changes and the history of words in general I highly recommend listening to The Allusionist podcast.
And to anyone who thinks that language is sacred and has to be spoken and written like it is in the Oxford English Dictionary I also highly recommend listening to The Allusionist podcast.
And to anyone who thinks that language is sacred and has to be spoken and written like it is in the Oxford English Dictionary I also highly recommend listening to The Allusionist podcast.
More coverage of Gretchen's book is quoted on her daily linguistics blog:
https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/186456220892/reviews-of...
https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/186456220892/reviews-of...
Internet has brought tons of new slang, acronyms and abreviations including a huge amount of ortography problems thanks to the higher volume of communication and the speed we can communicate right now.
It may be hard to separate the 3 factors that come to mind:
1. higher volume of communication. (more people than ever write/read more than ever)
2. lower bar for observable/written down communication. (anybody can write publicly/permanently)
3. faster transmission of previously local slang. (more groups that previously would have kept their slang to themselves are interacting than ever, e.g. your non black friends ruining the word "ratchet" before 2014 ended)
and by slang here, I mean both verbal and grammatical