Twitter. You only have 140 characters. So many times, I rewrite the sentences in a different way or paraphrase what I am trying to say. When you have limits, you go one way around. You have a more concentrated message only in one sentence. I think this enriches a language. Some may call all the abbreviations (like lol, asap etc.) ‘erosion of language’, however, we cannot ignore that language is flexible and changable. The change does not have to be in a bad way. 3 years ago, I was asked to write texts but with exactly 1000 characters. It was really hard because I felt under a great pressure. After some time, I realized that the character count was not bothering me anymore. I could rephrase the sentences in a very short time. Limitations have disciplined my language and this contributed a lot to my translations. You just learn how to play with your language, which is what you need as a translator. Noam Chomsky agree with me. Here is the proof by Rebecca Greenfield:
“Contrary to all the LOLs, emoticons and hashtags happening in feeds across the Twittersphere, Twitter isn’t destroying the English language, it’s making it better. The medium only allows for 140 character musings, lending itself to abbreviations that don’t exactly follow conventional spelling or grammar rules. Linguist Noam Chomsky finds the whole thing appalling, calling it “very shallow communication” in an interview with DC blog Brightest Young Things. “It requires a very brief, concise form of thought and so on that tends toward superficiality and draws people away from real serious communication … It is not a medium of a serious interchange,” he told Jeff Jetton. But while a few language snobs are in Chomsky’s camp, the rest of the linguistic community doesn’t exactly agree. Read more, click here.”
Visit our Facebook page.