After reading the articles last week about chat and noticing, I started thinking about the physical distance aspect of Internet communication (that is, the fact that conversation partners are usually not face-to-face and may never have seen each other).
We've talked about how chat can lower students' anxiety levels when it comes to producing L2 speech and in some ways I think the relative anonymity of Internet communication can definitely make people open up and communicate more and on a more personal level than they might in a face-to-face interaction, especially for some personality types.
However, I also wonder what this kind of communication means for identity. It seems that a lot of digital natives have online personas that are sometimes very different from their live personalities--and it's not always good. Look at the comments under most YouTube videos and you'll see a lot of people being haters for hating's sake. Would they do the same if faced with the immediate consequences of the interlocutor's reaction?
I feel like online communication changes a lot about etiquette, but the deeper issue for me is more about re-defining what it means to be human & have language...is conversation still conversation if you can't see the person's face, look into their eyes, watch their expressions, hear their voice? Jin talked about losing her handwriting to computer fonts, and I feel that both penmanship and voices are unique, human markers that identify us and help our conversation partners (or pen pals) feel connected to an actual person. A lot of these things are involved in developing intercultural competence and I wonder if something will be lost when it's all digitized. What will the interpersonal communication rules be in the future?
Blogs for Specific Purposes
12 years ago
I agree, some things are lost, but what other things are gained? In the Victorian era, people had 'calling cards' and worried about what their clothing choices, speech mannerisms, and social standing 'said' about them--all identity issues--so you could argue that the game is played differently, but it's still the same game.
ReplyDeleteKatie, you might want to take a look at chapter 6 of the Digital Nation episode of Frontline (there's a link on my blog). It talks about similar issues as you mention here, focusing on relationships. It was hard for me to believe the way people talked about making such personal connections online (many through online gaming), but maybe that's just because it's not something I've tried...
ReplyDeleteTo add to your comments, I share your concerns...The not-face-to-face-and-not-voice-to-voice technology is so new and it is I think the first time we face a situation when we can communicate with each other in a way when we don't see anythin real about the other person except for the typed words that don't refer to/identify the personality of the person we're talking to (I'm not sure if I express myself clearly). In the era of writing letters people at least could see the handwriting, now there is nothing personal and now people don't think as much about what and how they write. So it is so easy (and maybe tempting - I don't know) to create a new identity and maybe get ost in it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you mentioned in class that now when people chat on line, it is fine to be doing other things while one talks to another person, so the attention is scattered and so on and so forth. It just seems that for better or worse there is a whole different attitude to conversing when one doesn't see the other person.