II. The Evolution of Discourse – Technological Adaptations

Ruddell discusses how literacy has evolved rapidly over the past fifteen years or so due to the explosion of technological communication. He argues we cannot afford to define literacy strictly, but must expand our definition to include burgeoning, new literacies. I agree, but again with qualifications.
The advent of the Internet has dramatically altered the way we experience literacy today. I am certain that all of my students with cell phones and Internet access invest more effort and time typing to their friends than they do writing for personal reasons or scholarly pursuits. This prevalence of technology has brought with it unprecedented expediency. It has also generated new Discourses, such as the significantly abbreviated messages sent through instant messaging programs and cell phone texts, not to mention the highly specialized lingo of online gaming enthusiasts. At times, communicating within an online gaming community can be like speaking an entirely different language, so it is easy for me to understand Ruddell’s point that we must be as adaptable as our students if we have any hope of keeping up with their fluid understanding of literacy.
There comes a point, however, when foreign Discourses can infiltrate the domain of a well-established language system. It is one thing to send a 160-character-limit text message to a friend; it is another thing entirely to include “u,” “IDK,” and “LOL” in formal writing assignments. Are these abbreviations really acceptable expressions in graded work? Shouldn’t students understand the concept of using different Discourses for different audiences? Normally I would admit that such distinctions fall largely on the shoulders of English teachers, who are already charged with differentiating between what is considered appropriate for various circumstances and readers. However, I feel this epidemic has become so widespread that all teachers have to deal with this “evolution” in language. I guess what really bothers me about this trend isn’t its abuse of the English language, but rather its contribution to the breakdown of social conventions. The more students weave techno-Discourse into their daily writings, the harder it becomes to differentiate between formal and informal registers. Hypothetically, within a generation or two there will be no real distinction.
Interestingly (to me, anyways), we are managing to stay abreast of current trends in this fluctuating use of the ever-changing English language. Despite my ivory-tower-mindedness concerning the “appropriate” use of language, I actually embrace the idea that language responds to its environment like a living organism would. When Ruddell argues that teachers must take it upon themselves to adapt to the changing times, I can’t help but think that our very participation in a RAISSE blog is evidence of our commitment to this very ideal. It seems we are already undergoing a transformation that will allow us to operate on the same “page” as our students. My question is, should we wholeheartedly support this change (a la “survival of the fittest”), or is there a point at which we should remain steadfastly true to the literal page before the digital world makes the printed word obsolete?