Instant Messaging: Friend or Foe?

In my most recent post, I evaluated potential implications of recent research about the human brain benefiting from the internet, and articulated concern with the emphasis on web use instead of reading traditionally. Consequently, this week I investigated various evidence about online effects on reading and writing in young people--specifically by instant messaging. This unique means of communication, IM for short, involves text-based expression in real time and unlike email, a sense of urgency can exist as the other individual waits for a response. Hence, many instant message users employ abbreviated English. For instance, "lol" means "laugh out loud" "ttyl" means "talk to you later," "u" acts as "you" and "b" as "be." With students utilizing instant messaging, AIM and MSN among the most popular seen to the right, it seems likely that ramifications of this habit exist in the classroom. To delve deeper, I scouted external blog posts covering this topic. First, I visited one called The Web of Language by Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois. His post entitled "Researchers: IM definitely infectious, but associated linguistic damage short-lived, haha" concludes that the English language is intact and that students can adequately distinguish appropriate times to use "internet language" so that it is not detrimental to academic performance. By contrast, in "The More IM Use, the Worse Test Scores," Dr. John M. Grohol, CEO and publisher of PsychCentral.com, discusses the adverse effects of instant messaging, as proved through test scores in a study. I have commented on both external posts, but have also included my input below for convenience.

"Researchers: IM definitely infectious, but associated linguistic damage short-lived, haha"
Comment:
I am very interested by your post about instant messaging, especially the points that made me reconsider my overall negative views of online abbreviations. For example, you say that high-school-aged users may sometimes add an "OMG" while typing, but "such alphabetisms inflict no more linguistic damage than Ben Bernanke mentioning 'NGO’s' at a meeting of the Fed." This is a valid point; no one would criticize Bernanke for shortening "non-governmental organization" because an abbreviation in this situation makes him sound credible and informed in the field. Similarly, doctors in an emergency room say "run an EKG," to express themselves quickly, whereas repeating "electrocardiogram" is inefficient if a patient is experiencing heart failure. Although a term like "OMG" clearly is not as important as "EKG" in my previous example, people use condensed speech to make a point in a timely manner, despite its frivolousness. Condensing English in such a way does not appear detrimental as long as it is used accordingly and the individual knows the phrase's elongated meaning. The English language might be transforming, for better or for worse, as a consequence of rapidly-moving lifestyles that cause humans to shorten words. I would be more concerned if individuals grew up exclusively using terms like "ttyl" and "omg" because those abbreviations would have become a substitute for the four-word and three-word phrases, respectively. If a succession of letters like these begins to take on a meaning in and of itself, problems would undoubtedly arise, for example while trying to translate words when learning another language, or having a foreigner learn English. I suppose it could be viewed as a sort of slang used regionally, just as colloquial Spanish is different in Mexico, El Salvador, and Spain. What are your thoughts regarding the transformation of the English language? Do you think such abbreviations would ever merit addition to a traditional dictionary? As evidence that English is undergoing change, you reference a Pew Internet Project study citing that 85% of American teens message digitally, while "38% incorporate shortcuts like LOL in their book reports, and fewer still, about 25%, use emoticons like the smiley face, in the essays." This does not seem to concern you, but I believe this is worrisome. When you state that teens are "cued in to enough linguistic nuances" that they can distinguish "what's appropriate for some kinds of writing may not be appropriate for others," but this is an alarmingly high number using internet-speak in a very unfitting situation.

"The More IM Use, the Worst Test Scores"
Comment:
Thank you for your post regarding the recent study about instant messaging acting as a distraction for comprehending an online passage. It was inarguably foreseeable that this online communication would increase the time taken to complete an assignment because multitasking stretches attention in many directions. This interference could have been anything though, so the following statement might also apply to television, video games, and the like: "The study also found that the more time participants reported spending on IM in their everyday lives, the significantly lower their comprehension scores and their Grade Point Average (GPA)." If students are spending mass amounts of time doing activities other than studying, it seems bound to affect their academics negatively. By contrast, if GPAs are actually lower due to instant messaging, I question whether it is a result of this kind of communication, or because of the way they use the web. Internet surfers tend to skim and are accustomed to constant visual stimulation. Do you think students who use the web more frequently are at a disadvantage in school because it is more difficult for them to immerse themselves in a traditional novel? It seems likely that their online habits would translate into their daily lives away from the computer. Even if it proves false and internet practices do not persist outside, do you believe that because participants took this test on the web, they did not comprehend the reading well because they do not usually read deeply for content on this medium? But going beyond comprehension, I am curious about the affects of instant messaging abbreviations on students. You say that "People who IM more than others may not do as well on a test of a person’s knowledge, especially if that test has fill-in-the-blank or essay questions (as opposed to multiple choice)." It seems as though students who are used to writing very informally on the internet may struggle when asked to complete essay-type questions, especially while online because one's personal chatting may become confused with the task at hand, seeing as they both originate from the same screen.