This chapter aims to analyze bing literature on societal networking sites and their impact they have on linguistic communication criterion characteristics. Section 2.2 provides a short overview of societal networking sites, who uses them and what they use them for. 2.3 discuss the criterion and non criterion characteristics of linguistic communication. 2.4 discuss the possibility of impairment of autochthonal linguistic communications. Section 2.5 offers a decision to this chapter.
2.2 Definition of Social Networking Sites
Social networking on-line involves utilizing Web sites to portion information with others and connect with them by making a profile. SNS allow users to add friends, send messages and remark on others ‘ profile pages. Communicating with others is a cardinal facet of utilizing SNS. SNS users may post public messages or may utilize bulletins or private messages to pass on with those on their friends list.
“ Social networking websites map like an on-line community of cyberspace users. Depending on the web site in inquiry, many of these on-line community members portion common involvements in avocations, faith, or political relations. Once you are given entree to a societal networking website you can get down to socialise. This socialisation may include reading the profile pages of other members and perchance even reaching them. ”
boyd and Ellison ( 2007 ) define SNSs as
“ Web-based services that allow persons to ( 1 ) concept a public or semi-public profile within a delimited system, ( 2 ) joint a list of other users with whom they portion a connexion, and ( 3 ) position and track their list of connexions and those made by others within the system ” .
SNS ‘s typically provide users with a profile infinite, installations for uploading content ( e.g. exposures, music ) , messaging in assorted signifiers and the ability to do connexions to other people. These connexions ( or aˆzfriendsaˆY ) are the nucleus functionality of a societal web site ( Ellison et al, 2006, Donath & A ; boyd, 2004 ) .
“ This ability to do connexions or set up webs with people that one may be run intoing for the first clip through fall ining a group, raises a series of hard issues in research into SNS, in that two footings ‘social web sites ‘ and ‘social networking sites ‘ are normally found in the literature. Given this ambiguity, boyd and Ellison ( 2007 ) effort to clear up the relationship between them: ‘Networking ‘ emphasizes relationship induction, frequently between aliens. While networking is possible on these sites, it is non the primary pattern on many of them, nor is it what differentiates them from other signifiers of computer-mediated communicating ( CMC ) aˆ¦ What makes societal web sites unique is non that they allow persons to run into aliens, but instead that they enable users to joint and do seeable their societal webs. This can ensue in connexions between persons that would non otherwise be made, but that is frequently non the end, and these meetings are often between ‘latent ties’aˆ¦ who portion some offline connexion. On many of the big SNS, participants are non needfully ‘networking ‘ or looking to run into new people ; alternatively, they are chiefly pass oning with people who are already a portion of their extended societal web. To stress this articulated societal web as a critical organizing characteristic of these sites, we label them “ societal web sites ” ( boyd & A ; Ellison 2007: n.p. ) cited by Harison and Thomas ( 2009 ) .
2.2.1 Who uses SNS ‘S and what do they utilize them for?
“ Beyond profiles, uploading exposures, friends, remarks, and private messaging, SNSs vary greatly in their characteristics and user base. Some have video-sharing capablenesss ; others have constitutional blogging and instant messaging engineering. There are mobile-specific SNSs ( e.g. , MXit ) , but some SNSs besides support nomadic interactions ( e.g. , Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter ) . Many SNSs mark people from specific geographical parts or lingual groups ” ( Redmond, 2010 ) .
Harmonizing to Lampe et Al. ( 2006 ) , societal networking sites may besides function a surveillance map, leting users to “ track the actions, beliefs and involvements of the larger groups to which they belong ”
Harmonizing to Redmond ( 2010 )
“ immature people are known to be some of the most likely to take part on some SNSs ( e.g. , Facebook ‘s initial focal point on college pupils and so high school pupils left out older people by design ) , proposing that concentrating on striplings and immature grownups is particularly of import if research workers are to derive a better apprehension of how such sites are being incorporated into people ‘s lives ” ( Hargittai, 2007 ) .
SNSs users can run from immature people go toing secondary school, college and university, and right up to grownups. It is common for SNSs to hold a minimal age demand such as Facebook who advice users must be at least 13 old ages of age to make an history and go a member ( Facebook, 2010 ) . Further on in this survey the consequences of a study which was carried out will supply more elaborate information on users of SNSs in South Africa.
2.3 Theoretical background criterion and non-standard characteristics of linguistic communication
“ South Africa has eleven official linguistic communications, each of which has its ain vocabulary and grammar. The position of the standard assortment of a linguistic communication is normally provided by the instruction system ” ( Jahr and Janicki, 1995: 30 ) cited by Magagula ( 2009 ) .
Language is learned mostly through formal instruction and is used for most written and formal spoken intents. Language is viewed as a structural requirement for human interaction. Standard signifiers of any linguistic communication are societal concepts, that is, they are created by the dominant community members in the society in which the linguistic communication is used ( Wilson and Henry, 1998: 5 and Webb and Sure, 2000: 18 ) .
2.3.1 Standard linguistic communication
“ The standard signifier of a linguistic communication is based on the address of the educated elite. The development of a criterion is influenced by a great assortment of complex factors. Mobility and the professions are some factors which tend to foster the use or non-usage of the standard linguistic communication. Such factors tend to impact urban countries instead than rural countries ” ( Magagula, 2009 ) .
Magagula ( 2009 ) further explains that standard linguistic communication is the 1 used in lexicons, grammar books and manus books because these paperss are regarded as governments on ‘correct ‘ use of the linguistic communication. Poole ( 1999: 111 ) identifies the undermentioned features of a standard linguistic communication:
It has been selected from among the assortments of the linguistic communication.
It has been codified and it is suited for usage as an official linguistic communication and written and learning medium.
It has been accepted by the influential members of the community.
As it is codified, it serves as a literary linguistic communication as it is perpetuated by the instruction system.
It tends to be used by conservative community members.
It can be used as a yardstick for measuring a individual ‘s rightness.
It becomes clear from the above features of a standard linguistic communication, that the standard linguistic communication, which earlier was merely a slang ( that is, a non-standard assortment ) , constitutes the lingual repertory of the community where it is used. It has been accepted by that community as a super-ordinate assortment, irrespective of the slangs which persons may utilize at place.
“ A non-standard or dialect refers to a linguistic communication associated with a regionally, or socially defined group of people ( Makoni et al. , 2003: 84 ) . Harmonizing to Wilson and Henry ( 1998: 14 ) differences found in a non-standard linguistic communication assortment have equivalents within the standard grammar. This means that non-standard discrepancies are embedded within structurally tantamount grammars: criterion and non-standard assortments are hence simply idioms of the same linguistic communication ” ( Magagula, 2009 ) .
A snap shooting on Facebook conversation which is one of the SNS is presented below on figure 1
Figure 1: Conversation between friends pass oning on facebook
This above catch shooting is a simplification of SNS ‘s conversation, when SNS users are holding conversation they do non look to be utilizing the same assortment of standard characteristics of linguistic communication as taught in schools. “ While there is ever a difference between spoken and written linguistic communication use the duality between common spoken isiZulu and standard isiZulu as taught in schools, is more profound ” ( Ndlovu, 2005: 4 ) . Old coevals ( expansive male parents and expansive female parents ) are, kicking that pureness of autochthonal linguistic communications is vanishing
Magagula ( 2009 ) on her research emphasize that one of the most of import facts about linguistic communication is that it is continuously altering. “ Everyone knows that linguistic communications have changed throughout the class of history. ” It is easy to see from a distance in clip that there are differences between the linguistic communication that was used in olden yearss and contemporary linguistic communication.
“ It can besides be shown from near at manus that linguistic communication is go oning to alter in the present merely as it did in the yesteryear. Old assortments are altering and new assortments are jumping up. Pronunciations are altering, new words and word signifiers are being adopted and old 1s adapted to new utilizations. Sometimes alteration is fast, and sometimes it is slow, and at any given clip some lingual constructions are altering while others remain stable. Indeed, alteration seems to be built-in in the nature of linguistic communication and there is no such thing as stable human linguistic communication. It is besides true that at any given clip a linguistic communication is variable. Languages are ne’er unvarying entities. They vary geographically and socially, and harmonizing to the situational contexts in which they are used, hence linguistic communications or idioms are variable and in a province of alteration ” ( Milroy, 1992: 1 ) cited by Magagula ( 2009 ) .
“ All linguistic communications are really of import for the cognition that they embody as looks of life experiences and for the people who speak them. They are vehicles for hive awaying and reiterating a society ‘s cognition every bit good as purveyors of civilization ( Makoni, Smitherman, Ball and Spears, 2003: 86 ) . This means that people should hold sufficient cognition of their linguistic communication and be concerned that it is developed ” ( Magagula, 2009 )
Language standardisation is the procedure by which an important linguistic communication organic structure, such asa government-appointed organic structure, order how a linguistic communication should be written: that is, its writing system, how its sounds should be pronounced, how its words should be spelt, which words are acceptable in formal state of affairss and what the appropriate grammatical buildings of the linguistic communication are ( Webb and Sure, 2000: 18 ) . Standardization frequently establishes itself in urban Centres and so spreads from them into the environing countries ( Poole, 1999: 112 ) . Harmonizing to Stockwell ( 2002: 5 ) , Milroy and Milroy ( 1999: 1-3 ) and Hudson ( 1980: 33 ) a standard linguistic communication should hold passed through the undermentioned four phases in the procedure of standardisation:
Some bureau such as an academy must hold written lexicons and grammar books to ‘fix ‘ and modulate the assortment. Therefore the assortment is mostly codified through the instruction system and standardisation depends on the being of a written signifier of a linguistic communication ( Romaine, 1994: 84, 86 ) . Language is a much more complex phenomenon than such things as table manners ( Milroy and Milroy, 1999: 1-2 ) . Therefore, the procedure of linguistic communication standardisation involves the suppression of optional variableness in linguistic communication and as a effect, nonstandard assortments can be observed to allow more variableness than standard 1s. Harmonizing to Hudson ( 1980: 114 ) “ address is societal, the regulations or accomplishments for utilizing it are for the most portion learned from others, in merely the same manner that lingual points are learned ” .
2.3.2 Non-Standard linguistic communication
Non-standard discrepancies are embedded within structurally tantamount grammars: criterion and non-standard assortments are hence simply idioms of the same linguistic communication.
“ Non-standard speech patterns and other signifiers of lingual diverseness would be counter-productive in a society with a great trade of mobility ( Chambers, 1995: 212, 230 ) . On one manus, every linguistic communication is flexible plenty to acknowledge new elements to heighten its efficiency ( Webb and Sure, 2000: 66 ) and on the other manus its talkers frequently resist the freshly formed footings ” ( Magagula, 2009 ) .
2.4 Autochthonal linguistic communications
An autochthonal linguistic communication is a linguistic communication that is native to a part and spoken by autochthonal peoples. Autochthonal linguistic communications are arbitrary unwritten symbols by which a societal group interacts, communicates and self-expresses. It enshrines the civilization, imposts and secrets of the people.
“ This linguistic communication would be from a linguistically distinguishable community that has been settled in the country for many coevalss. Autochthonal linguistic communications may non be national linguistic communications, or may hold fallen out of usage, because of linguistic communication deceases caused by colonisation, where the original linguistic communication is replaced by that of the settlers. ”
“ Sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace and Twitter allow users to seek out friends and interact with them in different ways ” ( Redmond, 2010 ) . Besides supplying basic communicating capablenesss some sites besides provide other assortment of applications such as sharing paperss, directing practical gifts, or gambling.
This chapter aimed to analyze bing literature on societal networking sites and their impact they have on linguistic communication criterion characteristics. Section 2.2 provided a short overview of societal networking sites, who uses them and what they use them for. Section 2.3 discussed the criterion and non criterion characteristics of linguistic communication. 2.4 discussed the possibility of impairment of autochthonal linguistic communications.