YOUR KINDLE NOTES FOR:

Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World

by Naomi Baron

Free Kindle instant preview: https://a.co/4b4T1ON

9 Highlights

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 14

Electronic communication can be divided up along two dimensions. One is synchronicity: Does communication
happen in real time (synchronous), or do senders ship off their messages for recipients to open at their
convenience (asynchronous)? The other dimension is audience scope: Is the communication intended for a
single person (one-to-one) or for a larger audience (one-to-many)? Here’s what the scheme looks like:

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 14

terms of chronological appearance, here’s another view of the specific technologies: Given the pace at which
online language technologies have evolved, it’s easy to lose track of the historical roots of today’s latest
communication platforms. And in many cases, the identity of innovators has become obscured. Our discussion
acknowledges how modern electronically-mediated communication builds upon the hard work of its
predecessors. For

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 28

Like typewriters and landline phones before them, computers and mobile phones convey language. But what
does the language itself look like? The earliest discussions of computer-mediated communication debated
whether online communication was a new form of language—or a degenerate one. Public discussion in the late
1980s and early 1990s focused on traits such as abbreviations, acronyms, emoticons (also known as smileys),
and untidy sentence mechanics (in spelling, punctuation, and grammar). There was also much talk about
flaming, that is, using rude—even crude—language.

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 33

Language users manage their communication in three sorts of ways. The first involves access: increasing our
chances of actually talking with particular people. Another is avoidance mechanisms for averting linguistic
encounters. And the third is manipulation, such as putting your boss (who is in the process of violating company
policy) on speaker phone. All these maneuvers have a role in adjusting the “volume” on spoken or written
language.
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 33

Speakers and listeners have historically been at the mercy of the laws of physics and the social pecking order. As
for access to others, the human voice only projects so far, even with cupped hands or megaphone. To avoid
talking to some people, those in positions of authority could typically restrict who got to speak with them, while
the rest of the public was more exposed to unregulated encounters—on the street, at the marketplace, in church.
In response, people have devised social avoidance mechanisms: crossing the road or looking in shop windows
when attempting to avoid conversation with someone heading their way, or offering a brief greeting before
dashing off to made-up engagements.

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 33

Conversely, we sometimes take advantage of social conditions to become privy to the conversations of others.
Eavesdropping is an age-old practice—whether by intention or accident. What about “volume control” for
written language? Traditionally, access was limited by physical or economic circumstances. Ships carrying the
mail sometimes sank; roads on which mail coaches traveled were filled with brig-ands; postal rates were high.3
At the same time, both letter-writers and recipients exercised their own access control. Senders paid for mailing
options such as express delivery or “return receipt” to speed transmission or increase the chances of getting the
recipient’s attention. Those on the receiving end might delay responding or ignore the missive outright. Written
letters or memoranda enable people to avoid face-to-face encounters. From classic “Dear John” letters breaking
off romantic relationships to impersonal job termination notices, writing provides a social shield, enabling us to
avoid delivering unwelcome news in person. Finally, writing generates opportunities for deception or gossip.
Rather than accurately depicting themselves, correspondents sometimes misrepresent their physical appearance
or academic credentials. Instead of maintaining the presumed confidentiality of a letter addressed to a specific
person, recipients have long shared documents with others for whom the writing was not intended.

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 46

Love and marriage. Yin and yang. We pair together so many noun couplets, but the relationship between the two
members is not always transparent. This truism applies equally well to speech and writing. Is writing simply a
transcription of speech? No. Is writing always formal and speech necessarily informal? Obviously not. Are there
conventional distinctions between speech and writing that most people can agree upon? Yes, as long as we also
acknowledge that differences between speech and writing lie along a continuum rather than being absolutes.3
We write casual personal notes and deliver eloquent orations. But conventionally, writing tends to be more
formal and speech more informal. In school, for instance, we are taught not to use contractions (let’s instead of
let us) in writing, even though they are extremely common in speech and increasingly found in contemporary
written publications. Here are some of the main differences between speaking and writing:4

Highlight (Yellow) | Page 161

Language is a human behavior over which people have historically made a considerable fuss. We talk about one
variety of a language being the “standard,” with the implication that any other version isn’t as good.
Highlight (Yellow) | Page 161

Distinguishing between language change and language decline is very tricky business. Since yesterday’s change
is often today’s norm, we may simply need to wait long enough before an innovation stops being treated with
opprobrium by language elites.