Computer-Mediated Communication and fail

Phrases such as what a fail or epic fail can therefore be placed in the interjection category. In addition, Peters (2004: 286) writes in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage that English interjections can consist of utterances of more than one word, like in the examples given above, and that they are now recognized as belonging to the same grammatical class as the traditional ‘phews’ and ‘ouches’. She states (Peters 2004: 286) that “grammarians these days tend to analyze as interjections a variety of other words that function as mini-sentences to communicate an attitude or social orientation.” What has changed is that interjections are no longer only perceived in grammatical terms but instead their role in interactive discourse has been recognized. If one were to omit all interjections from a language, communication between people would hardly be very enthusiastic or expressive. Peters concludes: “[…]

interjections are an important element of communication.” (ibid.)

2.4 Computer-Mediated Communication and fail

Before the revolution of the World Wide Web during the last two decades, language was

only connected to computers in the form of describing programming codes. Since then,

language on the Internet has become a widely researched topic as a new medium of

communication. In Herring’s broad definition (1996: 1), computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to the “communication that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers.” This type of communication includes formats such as instant messaging, email and chatrooms, as well as World Wide Web homepages, listservs and bulletin boards. Murray (2004, 464) notes that some scholars limit CMC to include only the type of forms “through which people send messages to individuals or groups”, excluding hypermedia and the World Wide Web. For the purposes of this study, Herring’s definition is used since the use of fail is not limited to instant messaging or chats but found in homepages as well. Crystal (2005, 1) mentions that CMC has also been used to describe SMS messaging. Since the arrival of mobile phones it would be more convenient to use the term electronically-mediated communication (EMC) (Baron 2004: 12) but most linguists still refer to CMC.

The type of language used in texting and online in instant messaging, emails, and chats can

be referred to as Netspeak, proposed by Crystal (2001). To understand the fail phenomenon,

we need to look at the linguistic features of Netspeak more closely. Some of these features

include compound words (webcam, cyberspace), blends (netizen), emoticons, the e-prefix

(e-book) and especially abbreviations (imo – in my opinion, LOL – laughing out loud) (Crystal

2001: 81-93). Crystal (2001: 84) also points out that the common word-class conversion in

Netspeak usually happens from noun to verb, for instance in to mouse or to geek out. Fail

can be regarded both as a verb to noun conversion or a clipped form of ‘failure’ which

adheres to the brevity rule of Netspeak.

In addition, graphology, punctuation and spelling of Netspeak can differ from standard English. In the case of fail, it is often used in the capitalized form FAIL. Crystal (2001: 87) notes that Netspeak has a tendency toward lower-case because of the “’save a keystroke’-principle” and therefore, “any use of capitalization is a strongly marked form of communication”, like in the sentence “this is VERY important”. He continues that to write a message entirely in capitals equals shouting. This may apply to cases where capitalized fail is directed to someone or something else as a mocking term in interjectional form (compare the “HA-ha” remark of Nelson, the bully from the TV-show The Simpson’s) but appearing as a noun or an adjective, fail is more likely to signal an evaluation or statement rather than shouting. This will be investigated in the data analysis to see if the capitalized form adds emphasis to the failure.

There is no denying that these features of Netspeak are widespread in online

communication as well as in texting. However, according to Bergs (2009: 69), “few, if any, of

the features in SMS communication are genuinely new and that most of them can also be

found in other, earlier and well-established means of communication.” For instance, the

common use of x for a kiss in instant messaging was already used in love letters in the

nineteenth century. Shortis (2007) has also argued that the vernacular orthographies used in

texting are not new; they can be seen in trade names as early as the nineteenth century

(<U> for <you> in Uneedabiscuit), popular culture (especially in hip hop and pop music) and

Children’s Transitional ‘creative spelling’ (when children learn correct spelling). In this sense,

fail is only an old word which has been given a new life in a different word class. But

although the respellings may not be new in linguistic terms, the form of communication is. A

noun or interjectional fail may not be in use for decades to come; nevertheless, it is still interesting and worthwhile to map the ongoing changes in language.

Journalists, educators and scholars alike have expressed concern over the impact of the Internet and SMS texting on language. It appears that this concern is unfounded. According to Baron (2004: 29), “the actual linguistic impact of electronically-mediated communication [is] surprisingly small”, based on the studies and views of scholars at a language conference.

This seems to be the consensus among experts in this field, including Crystal (2001: 19): “The influence is mainly on vocabulary, with graphology affected in some written varieties.”

Crystal (2001: 91) goes into more detail stating:

The most general features of Netspeak distinctiveness are currently found chiefly in graphology and the lexicon – the levels of language where it is relatively easy to introduce innovation and deviation. As with language change in general, grammatical variation is less frequent or widespread. When it does occur it tends to be restricted to a particular situation or group of users.

So, apart from some limited features in vocabulary and graphology, Internet language does

not seem to have a significant impact on language. However, Baron has argued that in

addition to educational and social changes leading to increasing informality in language use,

Internet language is “strengthening the role of writing as a representation of informal

spoken language (Baron 2004: 177).” Posteguillo (2002: 29) agrees, in that “there is a

tendency towards a reduction of formality when interacting with another person via the

net”, due to the fact that the spoken mode is seeping into the written form in online

communication (2002: 30). Baron (2004: 180) on the other hand, attributes this also partly

to “a more global ”whatever”” attitude regarding regularity in language. She is concerned

that the volume of writing that we engage in online is also making us sloppy writers. This increase in informality could be one of the reasons why some blog writers who otherwise use more or less standard language still opt for a “fail” instead of failure. And, since blog writing is not a synchronous form of communication or limited in space, there is no need for brevity or speed. This means that the use of fail as a noun or an interjection indicates language play and that the use has become commonplace in Internet language.

As mentioned earlier, interjections are also a feature of spoken language so their widespread use online can be seen as proof of the tendency towards informality in online writing. Ben Yagoda (2007) writes in his article for Slate, called Pardon the Interjection (How the Internet is Saving the Interjection,) that “interjections are suitable for online writing…because of the way online writing mimics speech.”

CMC research is also interested in the concept of playfulness in computer-mediated language. Although abbreviations and acronyms have been invented with the purpose of saving message space or keystrokes, especially in text messaging, “many of the phenomena that occur in online language are better described as playful than time-saving (Baym 2006).”

Dannet et al. (1997) say that:

Millions of people are playing with their computer keyboards in ways they probably never anticipated, even performing feats of virtuosity with such humble materials as commas, colons, and backslashes. Not only hackers, computer “addicts,” adolescents and children, but even ostensibly “serious”

adults are learning to play in new ways.

Abbreviations, acronyms and emoticons are a good example of this, and why not fail as well.

Especially synchronized formats like chats facilitate playfulness but the medium of computers is inherently playful. Just think of the mouse as a joystick and the keyboard as a piano. And as for the question of age, it will be interesting to see if “serious adults” use fail as much as teenagers do.

Dannet et al. (1997) state that “[f]our interrelated features of CMC foster playfulness:

ephemerality, speed, interactivity, and freedom from the tyranny of materials.”

Ephemerality and speed point to the type of communication used in instant messenger services where interaction is rapid. Interactivity here describes a kind of “flow experience”

which does not necessarily require human communication but interaction with the computer where we receive instant feedback to our own feedback. This can create a sense of immersion, which adds to the playfulness. Dannet et al. continue that “[t]he sense of flow may be even greater when participating in synchronous modes than when interacting only with the computer […] People often lose all sense of time, suddenly discovering that hours have passed.” Furthermore, “tyrannical” materials like paper and pen do not hinder the writing process anymore since online writing is digital. Dannet et al. also note that few of us make hard-copies of our Internet communication because the fun is in the game, not in the end result.

Baym (2006) mentions that “language play can also be seen in the development of new

words in online contexts,” such as ‘spam’ or ‘blog’.” Although fail is not a new word, taking

an existing word and giving it a new word class is a form of language play, not to mention

capitalizing it and using it as a stamp on funny pictures.

In document "Nice try, but this is a complete fail." : The use of Fail in Internet Slang (sivua 17-23)