Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Zero AI with plagiarism reports please
**files (2)**
– ## Argumentativeweek6.pdf
– ## 3.The_internet_makes_writing_innovative.pdf
**## Argumentativeweek6.pdf**
In this assignment, you will write a five-paragraph argumentative essay based on one of the
three topics provided below. Pay attention when developing your arguments and
counterarguments.
Please note that each topic comes with an article that you need to read beforehand. Somewhere
in your essay, you need to cite the accompanying article at least once; if you wish, you can also
cite other articles, but this one is a must. The accompanying articles are attached to this assignment,
and they also provide a direct link for the article itself. Please do not quote; instead, you should
paraphrase or summarize.
Please note that you must submit this essay as a Word document, and it has to follow proper APA
format and structure.
“The Internet Makes Writing as Innovative as Speech” by Deborah Cameron
Cameron (a professor at the University of Oxford) discusses her students’ views about the
“etiquette” for using writing to communicate with others versus using speech. Using your own
experience and what you’ve been reading on this topic of communication and technology, write an
argumentative essay where you argue for or against the use of etiquette for writing and
communicating online. You will want to consider the different types of online writing that your
etiquette guide will cover, including emails, instant messages (IMs), text messages, posts, and so on.
Then, consider what you want to say about the proper way to use (and not use) each form or type
of technology when communicating with others. Think about the objections or criticisms that
others might raise to your etiquette guidelines, and where appropriate.
The Article Is In The Other File
– The Article Is In The Other File
**## 3.The_internet_makes_writing_innovative.pdf**
Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated
PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine
generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.
The internet makes writing as innovative as speech
Author: Deborah Cameron
Date: Feb. 17, 2017
From: New Statesman(Vol. 146, Issue 5354)
Publisher: New Statesman, Ltd.
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,178 words
Full Text:
Many articles on how the internet has changed language are like linguistic versions of the old Innovations catalogue, showcasing the
latest strange and exciting products of our brave new digital culture: new words ("rickroll"); new uses of existing words ("trend" as a
verb); abbreviations (smh, or "shaking my head"); and graphic devices (such as the much-hyped "new language" of emojis). Yet
these formal innovations are merely surface (and in most cases ephemeral) manifestations of a deeper change–a change in our
relationship with the written word.
I first started to think about this at some point during the Noughties, after I noticed the odd behaviour of a friend's teenage daughter.
She was watching TV, alone and in silence, while her thumbs moved rapidly over the keys of her mobile phone. My friend explained
that she was chatting with a classmate: they weren't in the same physical space, but they were watching the same programme, and
discussing it in a continuous exchange of text messages. What I found strange wasn't the activity itself. As a teenage girl in the
1970s, I, too, was capable of chatting on the phone for hours to someone I'd spent all day with at school. The strange part was the
medium: not spoken language, but written text.
In 1997, research conducted for British Telecom found that face-to-face speech accounted for 86 per cent of the average Briton's
communications, and telephone speech for 12 per cent. Outside education and the (white-collar or professional) workplace, most
adults did little writing. Two decades later, it's probably still true that most of us talk more than we write. But there's no doubt we are
making more use of writing, because so many of us now use it in our social interactions. We text, we tweet, we message, we
Facebook; we have intense conversations and meaningful relationships with people we've never spoken to.
Writing was not designed to serve this purpose. Its original function was to store information in a form that did not depend on memory
for its transmission and preservation. It acquired other functions, of the social kind, among others; but even in the days when "snail
mail" was less snaillike (in large cities in the early 1900s there were five postal deliveries a day), "conversations" conducted by letter
or postcard fell far short of the rapid back-and-forth that today's technology makes possible.
When a medium acquires new functions, it will need to be adapted by means of creating new forms. Many online innovations are
motivated by the need to make written language do a better job of two things in particular: communicating tone, and expressing
individual or group identity. The rich resources speech offers for these purposes (such as accent, intonation, voice quality and, in
face-to-face contexts, body language) are not reproducible in text-based communication. But users of digital media have found ways
to exploit the resources that are specific to text, such as spelling, punctuation, font and spacing.
The creative use of textual resources started early on, with conventions such as capital letters to indicate shouting and the addition of
smiley-face emoticons (the ancestors of emojis) to signal humorous or sarcastic intent, but over time it has become more nuanced
and differentiated. To those in the know, a certain respelling (as in "smol" for "small") or the omission of standard punctuation (such
as the full stop at the end of a message) can say as much about the writer's place in the virtual world as her accent would say about
her location in the real one.
These newer conventions have gained traction in part because of the way the internet has developed. As older readers may recall,
the internet was once conceptualised as an "information superhighway", a vast and instantly accessible repository of useful stuff. But
the highway was a one-way street: its users were imagined as consumers rather than producers. Web 2.0 changed that. Writers no
longer needed permission to publish: they could start a blog, or write fan fiction, without having to get past the established
gatekeepers, editors and publishers. And this also freed them to deviate from the linguistic norms that were strictly enforced in print–
to experiment or play with grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Inevitably, this has prompted complaints that new digital media have caused literacy standards to plummet. That is wide of the mark:
it's not that standards have fallen, it's more that in the past we rarely saw writing in the public domain that hadn't been edited to meet
certain standards. In the past, almost all linguistic innovation (the main exception being formal or technical vocabulary) originated in
speech and appeared in print much later. But now we are seeing traffic in the opposite direction.
Might all this be a passing phase? It has been suggested that as the technology improves, many text-based forms of online
communication will revert to their more "natural" medium: speech. In some cases this seems plausible (in a few it's already
happening). But there are reasons to think that speech will not supplant text in all the new domains that writing has conquered.
Consider my friend's daughter and her classmate, who chose to text when they could have used their phones to talk. This choice
reflected their desire for privacy: your mother can't listen to a text-based conversation. Or consider the use of texting to perform what
politeness theorists call "face-threatening acts", such as sacking an employee or ending an intimate relationship. This used to be
seen as insensitive, but my university students now tell me they prefer it–again, because a text is read in private. Your reaction to
being dumped will not be witnessed by the dumper: it allows you to retain your dignity, and gives you time to craft your reply.
Students also tell me that they rarely speak on the phone to anyone other than their parents without prearranging it. They see
unsolicited voice calls as an imposition; text-based communication is preferable (even if it's less efficient) because it doesn't demand
the recipient's immediate and undivided attention. Their guiding principle seems to be: "I communicate with whom I want, when I
want, and I respect others' right to do the same."
I'll confess to finding this new etiquette off-putting: it seems ungenerous, unspontaneous and self-centred. But I can also see how it
might help people cope with the overwhelming and intrusive demands of a world where you're "always on". (In her book Always On:
Language in an Online and Mobile World, Naomi Baron calls it "volume control", a way of turning down the incessant noise.) As with
the other new practices I've mentioned, it's a strategic adaptation, exploiting the inbuilt capabilities of technology, but in ways that
owe more to our own desires and needs than to the conscious intentions of its designers. Or, to put it another way (and forgive me if I
adapt a National Rifle Association slogan): technologies don't change language, people do.
Deborah Cameron is Professor of Language and Communication at the University of Oxford and a fellow of Worcester College
Caption: Text me: we're now in constant communication
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 New Statesman, Ltd.
http://www.newstatesman.com/
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
Cameron, Deborah. "The internet makes writing as innovative as speech." New Statesman, vol. 146, no. 5354, 17 Feb. 2017, pp.
24+. Gale College Collection, link.gale.com/apps/doc//GCCO?u=mia56118&sid=lms-GCCO&xid=dcbb4810. Accessed 11 June
2023.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A487281006
[http://www.newstatesman.com/](http://www.newstatesman.com/)
**## 3.The_internet_makes_writing_innovative.pdf**
Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated
PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine
generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.
The internet makes writing as innovative as speech
Author: Deborah Cameron
Date: Feb. 17, 2017
From: New Statesman(Vol. 146, Issue 5354)
Publisher: New Statesman, Ltd.
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,178 words
Full Text:
Many articles on how the internet has changed language are like linguistic versions of the old Innovations catalogue, showcasing the
latest strange and exciting products of our brave new digital culture: new words ("rickroll"); new uses of existing words ("trend" as a
verb); abbreviations (smh, or "shaking my head"); and graphic devices (such as the much-hyped "new language" of emojis). Yet
these formal innovations are merely surface (and in most cases ephemeral) manifestations of a deeper change–a change in our
relationship with the written word.
I first started to think about this at some point during the Noughties, after I noticed the odd behaviour of a friend's teenage daughter.
She was watching TV, alone and in silence, while her thumbs moved rapidly over the keys of her mobile phone. My friend explained
that she was chatting with a classmate: they weren't in the same physical space, but they were watching the same programme, and
discussing it in a continuous exchange of text messages. What I found strange wasn't the activity itself. As a teenage girl in the
1970s, I, too, was capable of chatting on the phone for hours to someone I'd spent all day with at school. The strange part was the
medium: not spoken language, but written text.
In 1997, research conducted for British Telecom found that face-to-face speech accounted for 86 per cent of the average Briton's
communications, and telephone speech for 12 per cent. Outside education and the (white-collar or professional) workplace, most
adults did little writing. Two decades later, it's probably still true that most of us talk more than we write. But there's no doubt we are
making more use of writing, because so many of us now use it in our social interactions. We text, we tweet, we message, we
Facebook; we have intense conversations and meaningful relationships with people we've never spoken to.
Writing was not designed to serve this purpose. Its original function was to store information in a form that did not depend on memory
for its transmission and preservation. It acquired other functions, of the social kind, among others; but even in the days when "snail
mail" was less snaillike (in large cities in the early 1900s there were five postal deliveries a day), "conversations" conducted by letter
or postcard fell far short of the rapid back-and-forth that today's technology makes possible.
When a medium acquires new functions, it will need to be adapted by means of creating new forms. Many online innovations are
motivated by the need to make written language do a better job of two things in particular: communicating tone, and expressing
individual or group identity. The rich resources speech offers for these purposes (such as accent, intonation, voice quality and, in
face-to-face contexts, body language) are not reproducible in text-based communication. But users of digital media have found ways
to exploit the resources that are specific to text, such as spelling, punctuation, font and spacing.
The creative use of textual resources started early on, with conventions such as capital letters to indicate shouting and the addition of
smiley-face emoticons (the ancestors of emojis) to signal humorous or sarcastic intent, but over time it has become more nuanced
and differentiated. To those in the know, a certain respelling (as in "smol" for "small") or the omission of standard punctuation (such
as the full stop at the end of a message) can say as much about the writer's place in the virtual world as her accent would say about
her location in the real one.
These newer conventions have gained traction in part because of the way the internet has developed. As older readers may recall,
the internet was once conceptualised as an "information superhighway", a vast and instantly accessible repository of useful stuff. But
the highway was a one-way street: its users were imagined as consumers rather than producers. Web 2.0 changed that. Writers no
longer needed permission to publish: they could start a blog, or write fan fiction, without having to get past the established
gatekeepers, editors and publishers. And this also freed them to deviate from the linguistic norms that were strictly enforced in print–
to experiment or play with grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Inevitably, this has prompted complaints that new digital media have caused literacy standards to plummet. That is wide of the mark:
it's not that standards have fallen, it's more that in the past we rarely saw writing in the public domain that hadn't been edited to meet
certain standards. In the past, almost all linguistic innovation (the main exception being formal or technical vocabulary) originated in
speech and appeared in print much later. But now we are seeing traffic in the opposite direction.
Might all this be a passing phase? It has been suggested that as the technology improves, many text-based forms of online
communication will revert to their more "natural" medium: speech. In some cases this seems plausible (in a few it's already
happening). But there are reasons to think that speech will not supplant text in all the new domains that writing has conquered.
Consider my friend's daughter and her classmate, who chose to text when they could have used their phones to talk. This choice
reflected their desire for privacy: your mother can't listen to a text-based conversation. Or consider the use of texting to perform what
politeness theorists call "face-threatening acts", such as sacking an employee or ending an intimate relationship. This used to be
seen as insensitive, but my university students now tell me they prefer it–again, because a text is read in private. Your reaction to
being dumped will not be witnessed by the dumper: it allows you to retain your dignity, and gives you time to craft your reply.
Students also tell me that they rarely speak on the phone to anyone other than their parents without prearranging it. They see
unsolicited voice calls as an imposition; text-based communication is preferable (even if it's less efficient) because it doesn't demand
the recipient's immediate and undivided attention. Their guiding principle seems to be: "I communicate with whom I want, when I
want, and I respect others' right to do the same."
I'll confess to finding this new etiquette off-putting: it seems ungenerous, unspontaneous and self-centred. But I can also see how it
might help people cope with the overwhelming and intrusive demands of a world where you're "always on". (In her book Always On:
Language in an Online and Mobile World, Naomi Baron calls it "volume control", a way of turning down the incessant noise.) As with
the other new practices I've mentioned, it's a strategic adaptation, exploiting the inbuilt capabilities of technology, but in ways that
owe more to our own desires and needs than to the conscious intentions of its designers. Or, to put it another way (and forgive me if I
adapt a National Rifle Association slogan): technologies don't change language, people do.
Deborah Cameron is Professor of Language and Communication at the University of Oxford and a fellow of Worcester College
Caption: Text me: we're now in constant communication
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 New Statesman, Ltd.
http://www.newstatesman.com/
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
Cameron, Deborah. "The internet makes writing as innovative as speech." New Statesman, vol. 146, no. 5354, 17 Feb. 2017, pp.
24+. Gale College Collection, link.gale.com/apps/doc//GCCO?u=mia56118&sid=lms-GCCO&xid=dcbb4810. Accessed 11 June
2023.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A487281006
[http://www.newstatesman.com/](http://www.newstatesman.com/)
**## Argumentativeweek6.pdf**
In this assignment, you will write a five-paragraph argumentative essay based on one of the
three topics provided below. Pay attention when developing your arguments and
counterarguments.
Please note that each topic comes with an article that you need to read beforehand. Somewhere
in your essay, you need to cite the accompanying article at least once; if you wish, you can also
cite other articles, but this one is a must. The accompanying articles are attached to this assignment,
and they also provide a direct link for the article itself. Please do not quote; instead, you should
paraphrase or summarize.
Please note that you must submit this essay as a Word document, and it has to follow proper APA
format and structure.
“The Internet Makes Writing as Innovative as Speech” by Deborah Cameron
Cameron (a professor at the University of Oxford) discusses her students’ views about the
“etiquette” for using writing to communicate with others versus using speech. Using your own
experience and what you’ve been reading on this topic of communication and technology, write an
argumentative essay where you argue for or against the use of etiquette for writing and
communicating online. You will want to consider the different types of online writing that your
etiquette guide will cover, including emails, instant messages (IMs), text messages, posts, and so on.
Then, consider what you want to say about the proper way to use (and not use) each form or type
of technology when communicating with others. Think about the objections or criticisms that
others might raise to your etiquette guidelines, and where appropriate.
The Article Is In The Other File
– The Article Is In The Other File
**## 3.The_internet_makes_writing_innovative.pdf**
Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated
PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine
generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.
The internet makes writing as innovative as speech
Author: Deborah Cameron
Date: Feb. 17, 2017
From: New Statesman(Vol. 146, Issue 5354)
Publisher: New Statesman, Ltd.
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,178 words
Full Text:
Many articles on how the internet has changed language are like linguistic versions of the old Innovations catalogue, showcasing the
latest strange and exciting products of our brave new digital culture: new words ("rickroll"); new uses of existing words ("trend" as a
verb); abbreviations (smh, or "shaking my head"); and graphic devices (such as the much-hyped "new language" of emojis). Yet
these formal innovations are merely surface (and in most cases ephemeral) manifestations of a deeper change–a change in our
relationship with the written word.
I first started to think about this at some point during the Noughties, after I noticed the odd behaviour of a friend's teenage daughter.
She was watching TV, alone and in silence, while her thumbs moved rapidly over the keys of her mobile phone. My friend explained
that she was chatting with a classmate: they weren't in the same physical space, but they were watching the same programme, and
discussing it in a continuous exchange of text messages. What I found strange wasn't the activity itself. As a teenage girl in the
1970s, I, too, was capable of chatting on the phone for hours to someone I'd spent all day with at school. The strange part was the
medium: not spoken language, but written text.
In 1997, research conducted for British Telecom found that face-to-face speech accounted for 86 per cent of the average Briton's
communications, and telephone speech for 12 per cent. Outside education and the (white-collar or professional) workplace, most
adults did little writing. Two decades later, it's probably still true that most of us talk more than we write. But there's no doubt we are
making more use of writing, because so many of us now use it in our social interactions. We text, we tweet, we message, we
Facebook; we have intense conversations and meaningful relationships with people we've never spoken to.
Writing was not designed to serve this purpose. Its original function was to store information in a form that did not depend on memory
for its transmission and preservation. It acquired other functions, of the social kind, among others; but even in the days when "snail
mail" was less snaillike (in large cities in the early 1900s there were five postal deliveries a day), "conversations" conducted by letter
or postcard fell far short of the rapid back-and-forth that today's technology makes possible.
When a medium acquires new functions, it will need to be adapted by means of creating new forms. Many online innovations are
motivated by the need to make written language do a better job of two things in particular: communicating tone, and expressing
individual or group identity. The rich resources speech offers for these purposes (such as accent, intonation, voice quality and, in
face-to-face contexts, body language) are not reproducible in text-based communication. But users of digital media have found ways
to exploit the resources that are specific to text, such as spelling, punctuation, font and spacing.
The creative use of textual resources started early on, with conventions such as capital letters to indicate shouting and the addition of
smiley-face emoticons (the ancestors of emojis) to signal humorous or sarcastic intent, but over time it has become more nuanced
and differentiated. To those in the know, a certain respelling (as in "smol" for "small") or the omission of standard punctuation (such
as the full stop at the end of a message) can say as much about the writer's place in the virtual world as her accent would say about
her location in the real one.
These newer conventions have gained traction in part because of the way the internet has developed. As older readers may recall,
the internet was once conceptualised as an "information superhighway", a vast and instantly accessible repository of useful stuff. But
the highway was a one-way street: its users were imagined as consumers rather than producers. Web 2.0 changed that. Writers no
longer needed permission to publish: they could start a blog, or write fan fiction, without having to get past the established
gatekeepers, editors and publishers. And this also freed them to deviate from the linguistic norms that were strictly enforced in print–
to experiment or play with grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Inevitably, this has prompted complaints that new digital media have caused literacy standards to plummet. That is wide of the mark:
it's not that standards have fallen, it's more that in the past we rarely saw writing in the public domain that hadn't been edited to meet
certain standards. In the past, almost all linguistic innovation (the main exception being formal or technical vocabulary) originated in
speech and appeared in print much later. But now we are seeing traffic in the opposite direction.
Might all this be a passing phase? It has been suggested that as the technology improves, many text-based forms of online
communication will revert to their more "natural" medium: speech. In some cases this seems plausible (in a few it's already
happening). But there are reasons to think that speech will not supplant text in all the new domains that writing has conquered.
Consider my friend's daughter and her classmate, who chose to text when they could have used their phones to talk. This choice
reflected their desire for privacy: your mother can't listen to a text-based conversation. Or consider the use of texting to perform what
politeness theorists call "face-threatening acts", such as sacking an employee or ending an intimate relationship. This used to be
seen as insensitive, but my university students now tell me they prefer it–again, because a text is read in private. Your reaction to
being dumped will not be witnessed by the dumper: it allows you to retain your dignity, and gives you time to craft your reply.
Students also tell me that they rarely speak on the phone to anyone other than their parents without prearranging it. They see
unsolicited voice calls as an imposition; text-based communication is preferable (even if it's less efficient) because it doesn't demand
the recipient's immediate and undivided attention. Their guiding principle seems to be: "I communicate with whom I want, when I
want, and I respect others' right to do the same."
I'll confess to finding this new etiquette off-putting: it seems ungenerous, unspontaneous and self-centred. But I can also see how it
might help people cope with the overwhelming and intrusive demands of a world where you're "always on". (In her book Always On:
Language in an Online and Mobile World, Naomi Baron calls it "volume control", a way of turning down the incessant noise.) As with
the other new practices I've mentioned, it's a strategic adaptation, exploiting the inbuilt capabilities of technology, but in ways that
owe more to our own desires and needs than to the conscious intentions of its designers. Or, to put it another way (and forgive me if I
adapt a National Rifle Association slogan): technologies don't change language, people do.
Deborah Cameron is Professor of Language and Communication at the University of Oxford and a fellow of Worcester College
Caption: Text me: we're now in constant communication
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 New Statesman, Ltd.
http://www.newstatesman.com/
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
Cameron, Deborah. "The internet makes writing as innovative as speech." New Statesman, vol. 146, no. 5354, 17 Feb. 2017, pp.
24+. Gale College Collection, link.gale.com/apps/doc//GCCO?u=mia56118&sid=lms-GCCO&xid=dcbb4810. Accessed 11 June
2023.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A487281006
[http://www.newstatesman.com/](http://www.newstatesman.com/)
**## Argumentativeweek6.pdf**
In this assignment, you will write a five-paragraph argumentative essay based on one of the
three topics provided below. Pay attention when developing your arguments and
counterarguments.
Please note that each topic comes with an article that you need to read beforehand. Somewhere
in your essay, you need to cite the accompanying article at least once; if you wish, you can also
cite other articles, but this one is a must. The accompanying articles are attached to this assignment,
and they also provide a direct link for the article itself. Please do not quote; instead, you should
paraphrase or summarize.
Please note that you must submit this essay as a Word document, and it has to follow proper APA
format and structure.
“The Internet Makes Writing as Innovative as Speech” by Deborah Cameron
Cameron (a professor at the University of Oxford) discusses her students’ views about the
“etiquette” for using writing to communicate with others versus using speech. Using your own
experience and what you’ve been reading on this topic of communication and technology, write an
argumentative essay where you argue for or against the use of etiquette for writing and
communicating online. You will want to consider the different types of online writing that your
etiquette guide will cover, including emails, instant messages (IMs), text messages, posts, and so on.
Then, consider what you want to say about the proper way to use (and not use) each form or type
of technology when communicating with others. Think about the objections or criticisms that
others might raise to your etiquette guidelines, and where appropriate.
The Article Is In The Other File
– The Article Is In The Other File
**## 3.The_internet_makes_writing_innovative.pdf**
Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated
PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine
generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.
The internet makes writing as innovative as speech
Author: Deborah Cameron
Date: Feb. 17, 2017
From: New Statesman(Vol. 146, Issue 5354)
Publisher: New Statesman, Ltd.
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,178 words
Full Text:
Many articles on how the internet has changed language are like linguistic versions of the old Innovations catalogue, showcasing the
latest strange and exciting products of our brave new digital culture: new words ("rickroll"); new uses of existing words ("trend" as a
verb); abbreviations (smh, or "shaking my head"); and graphic devices (such as the much-hyped "new language" of emojis). Yet
these formal innovations are merely surface (and in most cases ephemeral) manifestations of a deeper change–a change in our
relationship with the written word.
I first started to think about this at some point during the Noughties, after I noticed the odd behaviour of a friend's teenage daughter.
She was watching TV, alone and in silence, while her thumbs moved rapidly over the keys of her mobile phone. My friend explained
that she was chatting with a classmate: they weren't in the same physical space, but they were watching the same programme, and
discussing it in a continuous exchange of text messages. What I found strange wasn't the activity itself. As a teenage girl in the
1970s, I, too, was capable of chatting on the phone for hours to someone I'd spent all day with at school. The strange part was the
medium: not spoken language, but written text.
In 1997, research conducted for British Telecom found that face-to-face speech accounted for 86 per cent of the average Briton's
communications, and telephone speech for 12 per cent. Outside education and the (white-collar or professional) workplace, most
adults did little writing. Two decades later, it's probably still true that most of us talk more than we write. But there's no doubt we are
making more use of writing, because so many of us now use it in our social interactions. We text, we tweet, we message, we
Facebook; we have intense conversations and meaningful relationships with people we've never spoken to.
Writing was not designed to serve this purpose. Its original function was to store information in a form that did not depend on memory
for its transmission and preservation. It acquired other functions, of the social kind, among others; but even in the days when "snail
mail" was less snaillike (in large cities in the early 1900s there were five postal deliveries a day), "conversations" conducted by letter
or postcard fell far short of the rapid back-and-forth that today's technology makes possible.
When a medium acquires new functions, it will need to be adapted by means of creating new forms. Many online innovations are
motivated by the need to make written language do a better job of two things in particular: communicating tone, and expressing
individual or group identity. The rich resources speech offers for these purposes (such as accent, intonation, voice quality and, in
face-to-face contexts, body language) are not reproducible in text-based communication. But users of digital media have found ways
to exploit the resources that are specific to text, such as spelling, punctuation, font and spacing.
The creative use of textual resources started early on, with conventions such as capital letters to indicate shouting and the addition of
smiley-face emoticons (the ancestors of emojis) to signal humorous or sarcastic intent, but over time it has become more nuanced
and differentiated. To those in the know, a certain respelling (as in "smol" for "small") or the omission of standard punctuation (such
as the full stop at the end of a message) can say as much about the writer's place in the virtual world as her accent would say about
her location in the real one.
These newer conventions have gained traction in part because of the way the internet has developed. As older readers may recall,
the internet was once conceptualised as an "information superhighway", a vast and instantly accessible repository of useful stuff. But
the highway was a one-way street: its users were imagined as consumers rather than producers. Web 2.0 changed that. Writers no
longer needed permission to publish: they could start a blog, or write fan fiction, without having to get past the established
gatekeepers, editors and publishers. And this also freed them to deviate from the linguistic norms that were strictly enforced in print–
to experiment or play with grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Inevitably, this has prompted complaints that new digital media have caused literacy standards to plummet. That is wide of the mark:
it's not that standards have fallen, it's more that in the past we rarely saw writing in the public domain that hadn't been edited to meet
certain standards. In the past, almost all linguistic innovation (the main exception being formal or technical vocabulary) originated in
speech and appeared in print much later. But now we are seeing traffic in the opposite direction.
Might all this be a passing phase? It has been suggested that as the technology improves, many text-based forms of online
communication will revert to their more "natural" medium: speech. In some cases this seems plausible (in a few it's already
happening). But there are reasons to think that speech will not supplant text in all the new domains that writing has conquered.
Consider my friend's daughter and her classmate, who chose to text when they could have used their phones to talk. This choice
reflected their desire for privacy: your mother can't listen to a text-based conversation. Or consider the use of texting to perform what
politeness theorists call "face-threatening acts", such as sacking an employee or ending an intimate relationship. This used to be
seen as insensitive, but my university students now tell me they prefer it–again, because a text is read in private. Your reaction to
being dumped will not be witnessed by the dumper: it allows you to retain your dignity, and gives you time to craft your reply.
Students also tell me that they rarely speak on the phone to anyone other than their parents without prearranging it. They see
unsolicited voice calls as an imposition; text-based communication is preferable (even if it's less efficient) because it doesn't demand
the recipient's immediate and undivided attention. Their guiding principle seems to be: "I communicate with whom I want, when I
want, and I respect others' right to do the same."
I'll confess to finding this new etiquette off-putting: it seems ungenerous, unspontaneous and self-centred. But I can also see how it
might help people cope with the overwhelming and intrusive demands of a world where you're "always on". (In her book Always On:
Language in an Online and Mobile World, Naomi Baron calls it "volume control", a way of turning down the incessant noise.) As with
the other new practices I've mentioned, it's a strategic adaptation, exploiting the inbuilt capabilities of technology, but in ways that
owe more to our own desires and needs than to the conscious intentions of its designers. Or, to put it another way (and forgive me if I
adapt a National Rifle Association slogan): technologies don't change language, people do.
Deborah Cameron is Professor of Language and Communication at the University of Oxford and a fellow of Worcester College
Caption: Text me: we're now in constant communication
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 New Statesman, Ltd.
http://www.newstatesman.com/
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
Cameron, Deborah. "The internet makes writing as innovative as speech." New Statesman, vol. 146, no. 5354, 17 Feb. 2017, pp.
24+. Gale College Collection, link.gale.com/apps/doc//GCCO?u=mia56118&sid=lms-GCCO&xid=dcbb4810. Accessed 11 June
2023.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A487281006
[http://www.newstatesman.com/](http://www.newstatesman.com/)