ModEnglish

How to have and argument online (Especially email).

I'd like to make a few quick points before I start this. I'll point out these points, because I plan to write this article using points.

I) I wanted to start off simply, describing in detail very basic and simple topics. And I have those (drafts, saved because I think they might be useful, but just aren't that interesting).

II) This article is meant for arguing with civility. I would advocate this in all situations. However, this is mostly for arguing with colleagues, friends (who would never continue with a discussion, once the tone was lowered), those who need a good e-bitch-slapping in a more intellectual way, or for important conversations (see arguments) that are likely to be forwarded.

This is the most critical preface to this article. These are general guidelines to starting an argument - I'm providing an outline and some suggestions. However, the most important thing to succeed in an argument is reading what the OTHER person is saying (which is likely the topic of an even more in-depth article) and responding to it. An even more important part is responding to what they have said, in a way that is most appropriate to your intended audience. Which leads me to my first key point:

1) Establish your audience.

Before you respond you need to know who you are writing to. It is likely you are responding to one person. If this is an email, it is likely that you are responding to them. If it is a conversation, you are DEFINITELY responding to them. If it is a group conversation you may not be. This is the first point because it can be the most difficult, but in many ways is the most important.

The first thing you need to ask yourself (to win) is 'why am I having this argument?' If you can't think of a good reason, then the best option may be to abort. ABORT. You are not losing the argument if you fail to argue, or do not respond. If they haven't given you sufficient reason to respond to their argument, they have already lost. If they are your only audience, and they have not managed to provoke (or galvanize) a response in you, they have lost.

The second consideration in your audience is your objective. THIS is another consideration that results in one of the most significant failures of argument in the ModEnglish language. Your response may be by text (SMS), email, Facebook, Twit, Twat, or subliminal. The medium doesn't matter, but the audience trump can be the decider of the argument.

For example, if you a brilliant text that lets you win the argument - then your text appears on 'textsfromlastnight.com'. You may have won or lost, depending on what your goal was. A more conrete example is an argument with a co-worker. You may have sent a brilliantly condescending email to your co-worker. You may have filled it with personal insults that would have shamed the person you are sending the email to - it could have been so personal it destroyed their self esteem, while no one else knew what anything meant. That may be brilliantly successful. However, if it gets forwarded to the rest of the office, no one else will understand those references. You may look to be incoherent, irrelevant, and ridiculous. Which means, you lost the argument because you didn't consider your audience.

I mention this because there will be occasions when you email someone in an argument, that you can be perfectly clear that they may misunderstand you. When they misunderstand you, their immediate reply might make them think you are stupid. It may not get the issue resolved. BUT if you know their are not, or will not be, your audience, then you need not write the message for them. If you are writing an group email to a co-worker (with bosses and other co-workers on the cc), you may not be writing the message for the person on the to: line. It might be a message that you are writing to your professor, which will be forwarded to the dean. It might be a message to your co-worker, realizing that your boss will see it. It might be a message to your (ex), that might be forwarded to many others.

This could mean many different types of writing. And it definitely does not mean writing with the intention of passing it on to other neutral parties. It means seriously considering who will, who may, and who could read any argument you send.

2) Know their bias 

(and compromise) 

This is another critical point. When people argue, it is frequently because two people don't understand each other. The problem is, most people tend to believe that the OTHER person doesn't yet understand THEM. Or, I might say that people tend to believe their own mind to be impenetrable, while others seem to be transparent. I put to you that that mutual misunderstanding is frequently the reason for an argument. If you can see how that works, you are already on your way to victory.

It is disgustingly unlikely that you could write enough words to make someone else see things the same way that you do - or understand what you are trying to teach them. Instead, you need to help the other person 'figure you out'. And you will need to do this using their own language. I know, on the surface, this seems slightly unappealing. A one-way mirror is so appealing. Most of us would like to be able to choose to be on one side of the glass. And if you see what I'm saying, well done. You're on your way.

An example would be far more useful though.

A) My number one priority is to maximize growth, expand the economy, and provide jobs to all who want to work

B) I want to enhance our society to create a socially responsible and sustainable future and to provide an environment where all of humanity can thrive in the prosperity of togetherness.

These are two disparate views, which you can classify as left, right, up or down. But essentially they are headed for an argument. When either A or B does not consider their audience, and does not consider the REAL desires of the other, they are far less likely to win the argument.

Quick example:

A to B(FAIL): We will make sure that we get hard working people back to work, and not to promote a culture of laziness by rewarding emotions instead of results

B to A(FAIL): We will promote the general happiness, ability and prosperity of society to create cultural growth.

Those may not be bad arguments. People who already understand and agree with the fundamental assumptions will agree with them. But they are bad ARGUMENTS because they don't consider who they are speaking to

A to B: We need to encourage economic growth in ways that contribute to society. It is essential that our economic success is directly related to social responsibility, and that we encourage the growth of jobs that contribute to society.

B to A: We can use our growing consideration for social and cultural responsibility to fuel economic growth. As a centre for development we can attract increasing investment, and develop our prosperity because of these core values.

Critical. You do not, and should not, use your own wording or values. If you use theirs, they will see it as an admission that they are right. They have managed to convince you of 'their ways'. But you have achieved your goals (Which leads nicely into another point):

3: No ego

Your ego will harm you here (and will have impeded you for the last few points). If you are arguing, you have an objective. If you are arguing for the pleasure of arguing, and have no objectives, I suggest you use rudeness with a speedy progression toward Godwin's Law (basically, all internet arguments eventually descend into someone calling someone else a Nazi/Hitler comparison). A well-thought-out argument should have an intention. The advantage of an internet argument, is you can take the time to seriously thing about your intention.

In some arguments, the most elementary objective to make your opponent concede. In many, this is not. Your objective may be for a resulting behaviour. If you need a certain results, this may result in you conceding. Yet, there are times when you can graciously concede once you get the behaviour you desire. This is one of the most difficult prescriptions because it is so contextual. I can only recommend that you make sure, if this is a serious argument, you have an intended outcome which you measure success against.

If you do not have this, the ostensible, mutual agreement, outcome tends to be to be viewed as the objective. Unfortunately, since you may never be viewed as correct in the argument, you may be doomed like Sisyphus to engage in a ceaseless uphill battle without result. DO NOT wait for the other person to agree with you. Find a particular outcome - the best outcome is a behaviour. If you cannot see any desirable outcome of an argument, then you may need to revisit paragraph 2 of section 1.

Think carefully about your objective. Hold this in your mind throughout (while continually revisiting  thoughts about audience and bias). You will feel obliged to indulge your ego. I promise, you will. But this will not serve you.

Don't serve it.

Social Networking Sites Destroying English (According to... journalists)

I just saw an article posted on Facebook. Apparently social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are destroying the English language, children's literacy and contributing to the demise of modern society.

I love these, because the poor grammar moan - along with the poor manners moan - is the refuge of everyone who has very little left to live for. This complaint is eternally present, and tends to be directed at young people. It isn't even limited to the English language (read Dostoyevsky).

However, the point is THIS ARTICLE BY CTV NEWS is the latest announcing the destruction of the English language. Gutting. Now, the media pointing fingers at poor grammar is a bit like Stalin promoting human rights. If you would like, you can go through that article and find the errors. I'll point out a few of the best ones - one of the things I enjoy most about bad grammar is the unintentional-meaning errors (which have the delightfully euphemistic name dangling modifiers). I don't want to be pedantic about misplaces commas, it's far more fun to look for the funny errors.

To write this article, they even found a few profs to interview. For example, the brilliant Paul Budra ('English professor, and associate dean of arts and sciences at Simon Fraser [University]). About language usage he said, "punctuation errors are huge". When I read this, it conjured up a few fantastic images. First, I thought of a gigantic, godzilla-sized comma destroying buildings at Simon Fraser. One student in the background yelling, "RUN! It's commazilla!" (mouth movements not synched to the voice).

Really!? Are punctuation errors really HUGE!? Or are they common?

I know, in English speech is more informal than written English (and online writing tends to be even less formalized). But, the words black, pot, kettle and shut up spring to mind.

Here's another quote I like. It would be terrible to speak the obvious, but, "If a student has problems with articles, prepositions, verb tenses, that's a problem." (This gem from Ann Barrett, managing director of the English language proficiency exam at Waterloo University).

I don't want to be overly critical, but this condemnation of the degradation of language as a new phenomenon caused by Twitter and Facebook is ridiculous. There is absolutely no convincing proof in this article that links the two.

Illiteracy, or poor literacy is likely just more visible because of the accessibility of word processors. Now the extensive errors, and global shifts in language are more visible. But, access to information is also completely changed - how about we use this to draw attention and work on it (where it's needed).

Yeah, cheers, thanks alot.

My favourite part of this article is at the very bottom, where it suggests, "share this article with your social network", followed by Facebook, Twitter, etc. links.

Introduction

I have decided (rather modestly) to take it upon myself to begin the codification of the Modern English language.

I've just heard too much of the aged class (and a few other annoying individuals) who whine about the destruction or bastardisation of the English language. Of course the accused tend to be: A) KIDS TODAY; and B) The interwebs. This does my head in when people talk about this, because they don't seem to realise that the form the speak would be completely ridiculous to the English people before them spoke, and is beginning to sound more ridiculous now. Language evolves with society, and if you are moaning about the state of language today you are just a silly Albertasaurus wailing incomprehensibly in the face of an oncoming [insert apocalyptic disaster of your choice] asteroid.
So, I am going to be the provisional reconstructor of Modern English.

Of course, technically 'Modern English' is already defined. Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia of misnomers, begins to tell us that Modern English is:

"the form of the English language spoken since the Great Vowel Shift in England, completed in roughly 1550."

There's a few reasons I don't like that. First, the 'Great Vowel Shift' sounds like something that would happen after eating a spoilt curry. I bet it was completed roughly. Second, that would mean modern English isn't actually very modern. Now, this means that we have to describe what we are speaking now as something other than Modern English, which pisses me off because if what I'm speaking [typing] now is not Modern English, and if I want to define what I'm speaking [typing] now, then I have to make up a new name for it.

Like modern literature - for some reason, in the 40s, literature became modern. Then, in the constant one-up-personship of academics, the newly literate intelligencia had to create post-modern literature, and add a prefix just to prove that they were doing something new. Unfortunately post-modern literature tends to be defined by being meaningless, pointless, and based on individual interpretation. Which basically means there is no crap - what you read is just a reflection of your thought processes. Which is a great excuse for people to write crap.

(And I don't mean to sound so harsh, because we now know that we evolved with pigs, from a common ancestor, so there is no shame in rolling around in the literary filth of one's own species anymore - in fact, it's natural and encouraged!)

But my point is, I don't want to wholly redefine what 'Modern English' is to describe it. I can't call it post-modern English, and I don't want to describe it by adding loads of extra words. The other option is to think of some cute, punny word. Perhaps E-volutionary English, to describe the transformations of the modern English language that have resulted from internet technology. But, if I did that I would risk sounding like a trite twat.

So I'll be going with Mod English. I think it fits perfectly for a number of reasons. Maybe I'll describe them more fully later - but I've deviated from my important point enough (for now).

The plan is not to reinvent language, because for all the changes that the internet has precipitated for language the general structure the same. The meaning of punctuation, and the construction of a sentence is no different - but new methods of communicating, like email, Facebook and Twitter mean that how language is used, and the 'words' used are -- interesting. And it's very important to stress that just because a new word, or meaningful unit (morpheme) is NEW doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you don't know your lol from you wtf, that doesn't mean it's some horrible destruction of language, it means that you haven't been keeping up with language or culture. But don't worry - because you CAN! And if you've been ending your emails with a "LOL", sincerely trying to virtually send "Lots of love", then I will be the one too bluntly tell you that you've been an absolute fool. You haven been concluding your emails by conveying amusement. Your LOL actually means something like "Laugh out loud", or maybe "Lots of laughs". To be honest it doesn't even matter anymore, because LOL/lol is just an expression of amusement. Lol is 'hahaha'.

So if you've been signing emails with a lol, you have either been continually self deprecating, or mercilessly mocking. And, I've received some of these emails - don't worry, I was forgiving, since they have all been from the aged class. I am nothing but forgiving when it comes to these simple folk.
AND THIS IS WHY it's important that I write this! Some parts of Mod English tend to be constant - lol is now firmly entrenched - but others are transitory. New words, and word forms, are constantly appearing but most quickly disappear. So which are safe for polite society? Which are appropriate for impolite society? Which can we hope to use for a long time, and what should we be conscious of? What is the difference between lol and LOL? What is the appropriate form for beginning an email? How much proper grammar is necessary in a Facebook status? How much 'proper' English can be omitted when you're being a twat and twittering? How can regular punctuation be reconstructed to convey emotion :)?
That's what THIS is about. Covering specific subjects (like particular acronyms), and general areas (email etiquette). Everything. As much as I can get to - and as this is a blog, and I'm not dead yet, there is always more time!

I would also like some feedback on this - comments/criticisms/questions about individual topics - ideas for important areas to cover, then please comment! That's part of what Mod English is - it's made by communication, not dictionaries.