Oral history

Peter Suderman has an amusing rejoinder to parents who say that text messaging is robbing them of their children:

I suppose I can accept that someone would be confused about the technical process of text messaging — figuring out how to navigate a phone’s menus in order to send an SMS is usually fairly easy, but perhaps not intuitive for everyone.

But how, if I might ask, can anyone understand the process but be confused about how to type more than a few phrases? This seems to me rather like understanding how to how to write in English and how to send an email but being confused by the prospect of typing anything more than a limited number of pre-determined sentences. Once you’ve learned how to type one phrase on a number pad, what makes any additional phrases more difficult? Is the subject really a total technical illiterate, or is this bad reporting? Is there something I’m missing?

As you may have heard me say, I'm an enormous fan of John McWhorter's book on the decline of formal language, Doing Our Own Thing. I talked about it with him when we did a Bloggingheads together (the segments on language are here and here.) One of the most fascinating things I learned from the book is how different oral and written languages are--languages without writing use short, redundant sentences, while written ones support a great deal more complexity in sentence structure.

McWhorter's thesis is that there has been a marked decline in formal language in America since the 1960s, which followed a long slow decline from the 19th century. It seems to me that this marks our transition from a written culture into a verbal one: we moved from speeches meant for printing in newspapers, to speeches meant for broadcasting. In the broader culture, people shift from letters to the telephone, from books to movies and television.

I wonder now if the internet isn't marking a transition back to a written culture. Almost everyone my age or younger communicates more often by email, IM, and SMS than they do by telephone. And people are shifting back to text for news as they abandon television news for the web. That's opening up, as the piece Peter makes fun of argues, a real culture gap between parents and kids. I wonder if it won't also eventually bring us a little more verbal complexity than we enjoyed in the 20th century.

Comments

See Also Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death. He was writing before the ubiquitous internet though (1985).

Posted by BP Beckley | March 17, 2008 2:34 PM

My impression of text messaging is that people mostly text like they talk, so I don't know that widespread texting is leading to more complex use of langauge. If cutting down the number of keystrokes is the prime directive of texting, it seems like it would tend toward less complexity rather than more. But I don't do that much of it, so maybe I'm wrong.

I look at this divide from the wrong (old guy) side, I guess. Getting any text typed into a phone takes me so much longer than typing on a regular querty keyboard, and I hate the very sight of those blasted abbreviations, so the whole thing is kind of an exercise in frustration.

Posted by BP Beckley | March 17, 2008 2:51 PM

BP: I am a frequent texter and I hate those abbreviations as well. With predictive text on my little Nokia, I've gotten fast at writing complete sentences. (It helps to be a good speller.)

Posted by Klug | March 17, 2008 3:02 PM

So, Klug, uh, what are you texting about all the time? I admit I don't feel an enormous gap in my day to day life that texting would fill ... I always wonder how people who use it a lot are actually using it, so do tell. Work stuff? Family stuff? Eh, speak up! These kids today, they're always mumbling...

Posted by BP Beckley | March 17, 2008 3:22 PM

BP: I tend to use texting as a way to transmitting information that would take longer to call about. For example, "I'm on my way; sorry, I'm a little late" to my wife, for example, when I'm about to head home from work.

To choose an extreme example, when the San Diego fires were raging last fall, people were asked to stay off the phones. It was very easy for me to communicate with my wife via text message. It's a reasonably unobtrusive way to communicate in an environment where phones aren't allowed, e.g. I was able to silently inform my wife that I had escaped jury duty during voir dire.

I've used it to communicate to my friends as a substitute for e-mail. It's probably network effects (or youth and laziness) but it's a lot easier to get them to answer a text message than an e-mail.

I see it as less intrusive than a phone call and more immediate than an e-mail.

Posted by Klug | March 17, 2008 3:43 PM

Klug:
BP: I tend to use texting as a way to transmitting information that would take longer to call about. For example, "I'm on my way; sorry, I'm a little late" to my wife, for example, when I'm about to head home from work.

Interesting example. I realize when I think about this that I basically don't trust that these things will actually be delivered in a timely way, so putting anything remotely time sensitive in it seems like a bad idea. To me, it has exactly the same shortcomings as leaving a voicemail: the very fact that you couldn't talk to the person immediately indicates that you have no idea when they're going to pick the message up.

I admit, I haven't gotten into the phone as a constant presence thing, really, even though I carry a cell phone. My phone doesn't work very well inside the building where I work, and I actually turn it off while I'm at home, and I hate the idea of talking on it (let alone texting!) while I'm driving, and that doesn't leave much time, really. Although it seems to run out of batteries all the time anyway.

I'm forced to conclude that I'm a fogey, perhaps irretrievably so.

Posted by BP Beckley | March 17, 2008 4:23 PM

BP: They're pretty much immediate, except when they're not. I'd say the fail rate is less than 5%; those times usually have to do with someone's phone being off or out of range.

Posted by Klug | March 17, 2008 4:37 PM

MM wrote: It seems to me that this marks our transition from a written culture into a verbal one: we moved from speeches meant for printing in newspapers, to speeches meant for broadcasting. In the broader culture, people shift from letters to the telephone, from books to movies and television. I wonder now if the internet isn't marking a transition back to a written culture.

I think you're observing the effect without identifying the real cause. The lowest common denominator, as I see it, is how much effort is required to communicate in a given medium. If the medium is expensive and difficult to work with (time, materials, or both), the requirement to successfully work the medium while avoiding tedious mistake corrections correspondingly tends to produce a deeper and more thoughtful sentence structure.

In other words, all else equal, a quill promotes better writing skills than a ballpoint pen, a mechanical typewriter promotes better writing skills than a computer word processor, and a formal research paper promotes better writing skills than a five-minute blog entry. This is not to say that the latter cannot also be used to the same effect, but rather that the former require more commitment, hence the author is more likely to invest something important in it.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 17, 2008 5:52 PM

One benefit that Klug doesn't mention is that his wife may be annoyed at him for getting home late. If he doesn't let her know, he'll have to hear about it later. If he calls her, he'll have to hear about it then. If he texts her, she'll have a chance to cool off before he gets home.

Posted by alan | March 17, 2008 6:45 PM

BP: Part of it is a culture gap, I think. I always have my cell with me. Most of my friends always have their cells with them. If I can't reach a friend on his cell for a period of more than a few hours I start to worry that something's happened. I know that I usually have my phone on vibrate (so I can leave it on during class/lectures/performances), but I turn the ringer on at night so I'll wake up if someone wants to call me then. Yes, I do realize I'm a bit on the other extreme.

But I sort of assume that if I send a text message my recipient will get it within four or five minutes. It's fast and unobtrusive, and my recipient doesn't have to respond in any way, so it's really good for quick notices that don't need a response. Also if you want to send the same message to a bunch of people at once (Hey, you should come to the party, it's really awesome). And you can use it at times when you can't speak out loud.

Posted by Jadagul | March 17, 2008 6:55 PM

Also if you want to send the same message to a bunch of people at once (Hey, you should come to the party, it's really awesome). And you can use it at times when you can't speak out loud.

One of those awesome vow-of-silence-monk parties. I miss those from college.

Posted by Rob Lyman | March 17, 2008 7:05 PM

alan: My wife is quite forgiving. Nevertheless, I try not to come home late now that I'm no longer a grad student and I try to keep her in the loop.

Posted by Klug | March 17, 2008 8:54 PM

Megan, Megan, Megan. You had that lovely chat with John McWhorter but insist on writing blather such as:

"It seems to me that this marks our transition from a written culture into a verbal one."

Writing is [a subset of] verbal communication, Megan. Nonverbal means not in words.

I am reminded of a judge I once worked for, who circulated an opinion to the court stating, "[t]he opinion tracked the statute verbatim, except as to the words." Widespread use of verbal for oral is a symptom of our transition from a verbal culture to something less.

Posted by joelopines | March 18, 2008 3:42 AM

Jadagul:
It's fast and unobtrusive, and my recipient doesn't have to respond in any way, so it's really good for quick notices that don't need a response.

You're going to buzz/ring their phone and make them drop whatever they're doing for at least a few seconds for something doesn't need a response?

I'm beginning to think that me and the modern era are never going to be friends.

Posted by BP Beckley | March 18, 2008 6:06 AM

Well, it probably doesn't need a response. Typical examples are "I'm running late," or "I'm here, are you on your way?" (If the person is close then that can be answered by showing up; if the person forgot completely he can just come and show up). And it's not like a ring of the phone is a burden--it doesn't really interrupt whatever you're doing at the time.

But it is entirely possible that you wouldn't want to be this connected. For me, I feel hopelessly unconnected because I have no push email on my phone and so I only get to check my email when I have my laptop open. I have to go entire [i]hours[/i] without checking my email sometimes.

Posted by Jadagul | March 18, 2008 6:28 AM

Jadagul:
And it's not like a ring of the phone is a burden--it doesn't really interrupt whatever you're doing at the time.

Uh oh. For me, it really really does interrupt. In fact, if I'm talking to you in person, and YOUR phone goes off, that counts as an interruption, and likewise if your phone buzzes you and you pick it up and look at it.

I think I'm starting to see how this works now -- in fact, you DO expect the receiver to at least look at the message as soon as they get it, and everyone just lives with the interruptions and/or doesn't see them as interruptions.

Like I said, I don't think me and the modern era are ever going to be friends.

For me, I feel hopelessly unconnected because I have no push email on my phone and so I only get to check my email when I have my laptop open.

Well, you have my sympathy on the email -- when I'm at work, I'm tend to lapse into periods of checking my email constantly while doing basically nothing else if I don't watch it. I really don't like this "push" thing though --it seems to privelege the people who aren't in the room with you over the people who are.

Posted by BP Beckley | March 18, 2008 12:03 PM

Okay, then I guess we have found a bona fide generational gap. If the phone rings while I'm talking to you, most likely course of action is take it out, see who called, conclude the person can wait, and stick it back in my pocket. If it's a text I'll read it because that's not really an interruption. Sometimes I'll take the call (especially if there's more than one other person around) and ask if it's something important or I can call back later. But I certainly wouldn't call the mere phone going-off an interruption, except at an orchestra performance or something.

Posted by Jadagul | March 18, 2008 3:27 PM