GAP BETWEEN GENERATIONS IN USING NETSPEAK AS A NEW LANGUAGE FORM OF INFORMATION aND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY: WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AT ZAGREB SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT

Tihana Djuras,Karmela Aleksic – Maslac, Jagoda Poropat Darrer

Zagreb School of Economics and Management, Croatia

Abstract

One can think that the use of Internet and social media, and with it the adoption of Netspeak rules is reserved only to the generation born with all those new technology. We are talking about the generation so called Z, but what about the generations X, Y, and the older one. In order to examine if there is any gap between generations in using the Netspeak elements in their formal and informal discussions the authors analyses the use of following Netspeak elements in open discussions between professors and students at Zagreb School of Economics and Management: the use of slang, the omission of diacritical marks, the use of acronyms and abbreviations, the use of emoticons, the proper use of openings and salutation, the nonstandard use of punctuation, the use of upper case and the use of prolonged graphemes.Authors assume that Professors at each course use more Netspeak elements rather than students, and that there is a positive correlation in using the Netspeak elements within the online discussion between professors and students.

Introduction

The new language form of the online communications, popularly called Netspeak generates itself from a spoken language, develops rapidly and becomes a commune tool of communication imposing the knowledge of its principles as crucial. [1] Slowly but confidently erase the boundaries between formal and informal communication leading its way toward the global language.Netspeak attracts with its simplicity and creativity in shaping the message. There is at least five ways in which communication technology influences and changes the Croatian language: the first is the introduction of anglism and originally English words; the second is spreading those words through the language; the third is the introductions of emoticons; the fourth is disrespecting of the rules of grammar and spelling and finally as the fifth way the use of obsolete tense – aorist.[2] In this paper the authors are concentrated at most around the third and fourth ways of entering the Netspeak elements into the formal grammar. The use of slang by both professors and students, then the omission of diacritical marks, the use of abbreviations and acronyms, the use of emoticons, properly use of openings and salutations, the nonstandard use of punctuation, the use of uppercase for simulating the pitch and tone of the voice and finally the use of prolonged graphemes. All this the authors analyze within the both, professors and students discussions.The increasing use of slang in formal discussions as well as the use of emoticons, omission of openings and salutations is explained by the return to the speech and imagery in the electronic media being described as the third media revolution. [3] The omission of diacritic marks is the result of the lack of its signs in first generations of mobile phones and software for PC. The nonstandard use of punctuation and the use of prolonged graphemes simulate and are trying to “give” the sound to the written language.

Asynchronous online discussions

Very important part of every e-learning system is asynchronous online discussions. [4, 5] In the paper “Important role of Asynchronous Discussion in E-learning System” [6], the authors analyzed the so called open and closed discussions (Figure 1). Open discussion represent different kinds of discussions within the course and are not strictly attached to the teaching materials. They can be discussions between professor and student, student and professor and also between students. Within the open discussions there are very important closed groups gathered around projects and other exercises. [7] Closed discussions are related to teaching materials and they are being analyzed and evaluated as a part of students’ grade. Steimberg & ect. in their research, they analyzethree groups of participants in online discussions: active participants writing posts, passive participants only reading posts and students that are not taking part in discussions at all.[8]

Figure 1Discussion types

In following paragraphs the authors analyze if there is a gap between generations in the use of Netspeak elements. The poll was conducted among the faculty and students at Zagreb School of Economics and Management (ZSEM), the leading business school in using and implementing of e-learning and new technologies in education in Croatia.[9]

Is there any gap between generations in using the Netspeak elements?

In the sample of 40,70% ZSEM faculty the youngest one is 25 years old and the oldest one is 63 years old. The average is of 38,1 years. Figure 2 shows the year structure of the polled faculty. Interesting thing to see is that 78,57% do not know what Netspeak means.

Figure 2 Year structure of the polled faculty

The same poll on using Netspeak elements has been filled in by 106 students attending the first year (mostly students aged 19). The polled faculty and students have been asked to estimate the frequency of using each Netspeak element within the formal and informal communication on the scale from 1 to 3 (some/ a lot/as my priority). By analyzing the data the authors compare the average use of Netspeak elements within the formal and informal communication.

Figure 3 show the use of written Croatian language in online communication.

Figure 3 Average use of written Croatian language within the formal and informal communication among faculty and freshmen

Figure 3 shows the more frequent use of written Croatian language in formal communication rather than in informal communication by faculty and students. As expected the older faculty assume they use the written Croatian language both in formal and informal communication. Students assume they don’t care about writing by the written Croatian language rule so much.

Figure 4 show the use of diacritical marks within the online communication.

Figure 4 Use of diacritical marks within the formal and informal communication by faculty and freshmen

Average results of using the diacritical marks shows that the students use more frequently diacritics then the faculty.

Figure 5shows the frequency of use of acronyms and abbreviations within the formal and informal communication by faculty and freshmen.

Figure 5Use of acronyms and abbreviations within the formal and informal communication by faculty and freshmen

Results show the more frequent use of acronyms and abbreviations by the faculty rather than the students both in formal and informal communication. The fact can be explained by more intense use of new technologies and by their need to be 24/7 available, to answer the e-mails and to participate in online discussion. Furthermore, some acronyms have entered the dictionaries so using them implies the knowledge of basic literacy. Faculty assume they use acronyms and abbreviations less in formal than in informal communication.

Figure 6 shows the average use of emoticons within the formal and informal communication by faculty and freshmen.

Figure 6 Use of emoticons within the formal and informal communication by faculty and freshmen

Results showing the use of emoticons prove that emoticons are used much more frequently within the informal communication. In formal communication the emoticons are used more by the students rather than faculty. The results in informal communication are different, showing the much more frequency of use of the emoticons by faculty. However, faculty use the narrow diapason of emoticons, just few of them, mostly smiley, while students are much more creative in applying the variety of emoticons such as smiley, laughing, frown, sadness, surprise etc.

Results on Statistical Research

Since students answer when asked in poll that they use less Netspeak elements rather than faculty the authors expected the same results in the online discussions within each e-learning course. Moreover, the authors are interested in seeing are the faculty using Netspeak elements, influencing students to do the same. Based on that the authors tested two hypotheses:

  1. Professors at each course use more Netspeak elements rather than students.
  2. There is a positive correlation in using the Netspeak elements within the online discussion between professors and students.

Testing the first hypothesis

Online open discussions, within the 14 courses, taught in fall semester 2011/2012, have been analyzed. Closed discussions have not been analyzed because active only within two courses, so the results wouldn’t be relevant. Each professor’s and student’s post within 14 courses has been analyzed to see the frequency and amount of Netspeak elements. All results have been summed up, and the arithmetic mean has been calculated using “paired simple t-test” as shown in Table 1. Mean is closer to 1 as the elements are used more frequently.

Table 1Arithmetic mean in using the Netspeak elements

Mean / N / Std. Deviation / Std. Error Mean / t / Sig. (2-tailed)
Professor slang / 0,3014 / 14 / 0,26904 / 0,07190 / 2,099 / 0,056
Student slang / 0,2093 / 14 / 0,20589 / 0,05503
Professor omission of diacritical marks / 0,0636 / 14 / 0,13771 / 0,03680 / -0,323 / 0,751
Student omission of diacritical marks / 0,0771 / 14 / 0,08287 / 0,02215
Professor acronyms & abbreviations / 0,4707 / 14 / 0,35752 / 0,09555 / 1,930 / 0,076
Student acronyms & abbreviations / 0,2921 / 14 / 0,23016 / 0,06151
Professor emoticons / 0,1186 / 14 / 0,23839 / 0,06371 / 1,257 / 0,231
Student emoticons / 0,0821 / 14 / 0,21275 / 0,05686
Professor omission of beginning of posts / 0,2593 / 14 / 0,30545 / 0,08163 / 0,132 / 0,897
Studentomission of beginning of posts / 0,2450 / 14 / 0,30079 / 0,08039
Professor omission of salutation / 0,2350 / 14 / 0,30066 / 0,08035 / 0,754 / 0,464
Student omission of salutation / 0,1686 / 14 / 0,15471 / 0,04135
Professor nonstandard use of punctuation / 0,0914 / 14 / 0,14298 / 0,03821 / 0,859 / 0,406
Student nonstandard use of punctuation / 0,0650 / 14 / 0,05932 / 0,01585
Professor upper case / 0,1536 / 14 / 0,21496 / 0,05745 / 2,809 / 0,015
Student upper case / 0,0343 / 14 / 0,08751 / 0,02339
Professor prolonged graphemes / 0,0007 / 14 / 0,00267 / 0,00071 / -1,000 / 0,336
Student prolonged graphemes / 0,0121 / 14 / 0,04543 / 0,01214
Professor total use / 1,6943 / 14 / 1,15989 / 0,30999 / 2,561 / 0,024
Student total use / 1,1857 / 14 / 0,90383 / 0,24156

Results exactly show the more frequent omission of diacritical marks and the use of prolonged graphemes by students, as well as the more frequent use of all other Netspeak elements by professors. The overall results prove the same. Although, considering the t-test results the authors detect the statistically significant difference in the use of upper cases. The overall results of using the Netspeak elements by professors and students show the statistically significant difference, and it is obvious that professors use Netspeak elements within the discussions in their courses much more frequently than students. That’s why the authors prove and accept the hypotheses of professors being using Netspeak elementswithin online discussions much more frequently.

Testing the second hypothesis

Correlations are obtained by using the “paired-simple-t-test”, and the results are shown in the Table 2.

Table 2Correlation of the use of each Netspeak elements by professors and students

Paired Samples Correlations
N / Correlation / Sig.
Pair 1 / Professor slang &
Studentslang / 14 / 0,793 / 0,001**
Pair 2 / Professor omission of diacritical marks &
Student omission of diacritical marks / 14 / 0,052 / 0,859
Pair 3 / Professor acronyms & abbreviations
Student acronyms & abbreviations / 14 / 0,370 / 0,192
Pair 4 / Professor emoticons
Student emoticons / 14 / 0,891 / 0,000**
Pair 5 / Professor omission of beginning of posts
Student omission of beginning of posts / 14 / 0,105 / 0,720
Pair 6 / Professor omission of salutation
Student omission of salutation / 14 / 0,060 / 0,838
Pair 7 / Professor nonstandard use of punctuation
Student nonstandard use of punctuation / 14 / 0,632 / 0,015*
Pair 8 / Professor upper case
Student upper case / 14 / 0,761 / 0,002**
Pair 9 / Professor prolonged graphemes & Student prolonged graphemes / 14 / 1,000 / 0,000**
Pair 10 / Professor total use
Student total use / 14 / 0,768 / 0,001**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results show the positive correlation in using each Netspeak element by professors and students. Observing the Netspeak elements the authors can detect the strong correlation in using slang. Discussions in which professors are using slang the students are doing the same thing. Correlation is of 0,793 and the result is statistically significant which is proven by the significance at 0,01 level. Then, there is a correlation of 0,891 in the use of emoticons. High correlations exist even in the nonstandard use of punctuation, upper cases, and prolonged graphemes.Positive correlation in nonstandard use of punctuation between professors and students is 0,632 with the significance of 95%. Correlation in using upper cases is also statistically significant at 0,01 level. Result of 0,761 proves the strong and positive correlation. Results of using prolonged graphemes show the complete correlation, as well as the statistically significant level. Reason lies in the fact that just one professor use prolonged graphemes and many other students while there is no such use in other online discussions.

Overall results of using Netspeak elements show that the correlation in using the each elements is 0,768, and is very strong, as well as the significance at the 0,01 level (2-tailed). All said before, prove the author’s hypotheses that there is a positive correlation in using of Netspeak elements within the online discussions between professors and students.

Conclusion

Although the authors expected to detect a great gap between generations among faculty and students at Zagreb School of Economics and Management,it appears that this is not the case. Not only that professors use the Netspeak elements in greater amount but also they persuade and influence the students to do so. Especially it can be said for the use of slang. Not only the generation Z submits their communication to the Netspeak rules but also the generation X, Y or also the older one adopted the rules almost naturally. This fact can be explained by the frequent use of new technology and systematic use of e-learningat ZSEM.

References
  1. Vasic, D., Aleksic-Maslac, K., Poropat Darrer, J. (2010). Impact of Information and Communication Technologies to the language changes and the creation of new language form – “Netspeak” in EDEN annual conference, Valencia (Spain), June 9-1
  2. Aleksic-Maslac, K., Poropat Darrer, J., Djuras T.(2011). Comparison of the distribution of Netspeak elements in asynchronous discussion within the same generation of students in the 1st then in the 7th semester in Recent research in educational technologies (pp. 82-87)
  3. Ivas I. (2004.) Govorna kultura u odgoju za medije in Medijska pismenost i civilno društvo, 9
  4. Garrison, R. & Anderson, T. (2003.) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice in Routledge
  5. Hammond, M. (2005). A Review of Recent Papers on Online Discussion in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), Volume 9, Issue 3
  6. Aleksic-Maslac, K, Korican, M., Njavro, D. (2007). Important Role of Asynchronous Discussion in E-Learning System in International Conference on Eng. Education and Research 2007 (ICEER 2007), Melbourne, Dec. 02-07
  7. Aleksic-Maslac, K., Vasic, D., Korican, M. (2010).Student Learning Contribution through E-Learning Dimension at Course “Management Information Systems”in WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, Issue 3, Volume 7(pp. 331-340)
  8. Steimberg, Y., Ram, J., Nachmia, R., Eshel, A. (2006).An online discussion for supporting students in preparation for a test in Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), Volume 10, Issue 4
  9. Aleksic-Maslac, K., Korican, M., Njavro, D. (2008).E-Learning Course Development – Quality Standards in International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications (EISTA 2008), Orlando, USA, June