Txtese: Revolution or Evolution?
A set of visualizations exploring Txtese, a form of shorthand influenced by recent technologies.
A set of visualizations exploring Txtese, a form of shorthand influenced by recent technologies.
System Map
Analysis: The System Diagram has proven itself to be a useful gauge of Txtese as it exists at this point in time. I find that this works especially well when diagramming a topic that is highly debatable by nature (i.e. the evolution or revolution of language). Being that the System Diagram provides us with a snapshot of an issue at a particular point in time, I think it would be interesting to apply this diagram to a dynamic topic in the form of a daily/weekly/monthly diagramming exercise.
Unfortunately, the System Diagram doesn’t allow for Txtese to be represented in any way that would be indicative of it’s antecedents in a more linear fashion (i.e. events as they progressed throughout history). It also fails to give an indication as to the ways in which Txtese will possibly continue to evolve as well as the ways in which the ‘revolution’ argument could manifest into a hinderance for the further development of Txtese. I attempted to remedy this, perhaps subconsciously, by placing the argument for evolution above the main Txtese bubble and the argument for revolution below it. Although System Diagrams are structured to appear unbiased, I don’t think there is any way that the maker of the diagram could possibly eliminate all biases as the map itself is based on the mapmaker’s perception. Intuition, when paired with logic, allows for not only ambiguity but also persuasion that is subliminal in nature.
Influence Diagram
Analysis: Much like the System Diagram, the Influence Diagram shows a snapshot in time but also allows for the weighting of various influences upon one another to be visualized. I found that this diagram was the most helpful in developing my personal understanding of the topic in regards to the relationship between the various elements and the weighting of these relationships. Most importantly, it aided me in my personal visualization of the main concepts and their interrelationships with not only each other but also their subtopics.
I chose to emphasize the four main factors encompassing the large idea (technology, shorthand, Txtese, and
linguistic evolution) similarly to the way I emphasized them in the Force Field Diagram. The larger concepts
connecting the four main factors and the influences they have on them were emphasized in a secondary nature via saturation. Both the tangibles and intangibles that I would consider to be of less importance, as well as their influences, were desaturated a bit to show their tertiary nature in relation to the other groups of elements. This was all done to provide a level of visual hierarchy for the viewer. In addition to this hierarchical development, I chose to emphasize the difference between the tangibles and intangibles (or the less conceptual influences vs. the more conceptual influences) via. the shapes chosen to surround each item. Ovals were chosen to emphasize items that are more dynamic and rectangles were chosen for items that ar more static in nature.
linguistic evolution) similarly to the way I emphasized them in the Force Field Diagram. The larger concepts
connecting the four main factors and the influences they have on them were emphasized in a secondary nature via saturation. Both the tangibles and intangibles that I would consider to be of less importance, as well as their influences, were desaturated a bit to show their tertiary nature in relation to the other groups of elements. This was all done to provide a level of visual hierarchy for the viewer. In addition to this hierarchical development, I chose to emphasize the difference between the tangibles and intangibles (or the less conceptual influences vs. the more conceptual influences) via. the shapes chosen to surround each item. Ovals were chosen to emphasize items that are more dynamic and rectangles were chosen for items that ar more static in nature.
Force Field Diagram
Analysis: A classic Force Field Diagram (i.e. one with a single layer of both driving and restraining forces) was a bit problematic in regards to the representation of Txtese, it’s antecedents, it’s current state, and it’s future possibilities. I found myself adapting the Force Field Diagram to suit the needs of the topic by adding multiple layers of both the driving and restraining forces. This began to logically resemble a mind map in many ways. Adding multiple layers, or topics and subtopics, seemed to provide additional visual clarity for the viewer.
I also subdivided the main topic into an equation-like representation (shorthand + technology = Txtese <> linguistic evolution) to help clarify the issue to the viewer. The main topic is the evolution of Txtese, however the idea of this particular linguistic evolution is largely the sum of technology and shorthand thus far. I felt that through the various subdivisions I made in this diagram, the entirety of the topic was represented with additional visual clarity.
There is what appears to be a slight semiotic problem with the Force Field Diagram. Through the visualization of the driving forces as arrows pointing down towards the main topic, the viewer’s perception of these forces could be that the forces are oppressive, and thus more of a hinderance to the topic at hand. The same type of problem exists in regards to the restraining forces, as the arrows pointed north appear to be uplifting. Adding the "Driving" and "Restraining" forces label to each area of the diagram does help to reaffirm the arrows' influences, which seems to make this semiotic problem a minor issue.
Sign Diagram
Analysis: The Sign Diagram was one of the most difficult for me to apply to Txtese, particularly when dealing with elementsthat can have both positive and negative influences that are reciprocal in nature. For instance, “journalism/press” is mixed in its affect on the growth of Txtese in that supportive journalism in this arena would likely have a positive influence on Txtese and the growth of Txtese would likely have a positive influence on supportive journalism. One problem here is that it would ‘likely’ have that affect but it is not certain, hence the negative sign I placed on the line indicating the relationship between these two elements. Positive journalism in regards to Txtese could produce a rebellious effect among the main user group (i.e. teenagers and young adults) and the growth of Txtese could do the same in regards to the tone of the journalism in this arena.
In hindsight, it is likely that I could have solved this problem by subdividing the topics. “Journalism/Press” could become “Supportive Journalism/Press” and “Non-Supportive Journalism/Press” just as “Linguistic or other Academic Analysis” could be subdivided into “Supportive Linguistic or other Academic Analysis” and “Non-Supportive Linguistic and/or other Academic Analysis.” My only concern here would be that the chart would quickly become too saturated with elements, making it hard for the viewer to gain a quick assessment of the topic or situation at hand.
Control Diagram
Analysis: Although the Control Diagram provides an excellent visual explanation of the factors involved in the evolution of Txtese, the very nature of the diagram approaching the issue as one that needs to be controlled from a more objective standpoint is problematic. Language is a democratic, ephemeral development and although it can be influenced by a myriad of factors, it cannot, in essence, be controlled by anything other than society itself. Also, it is impossible for a human (i.e. the diagrammer) to approach a topic objectively as the concept of objectivity cannot logically exist as far as human comprehension is concerned.
Being that many of the inputs were also environmental influences and vice versa, I had a bit of a problem in deciding which factors needed to be included in each category. I eventually concluded that all of the factors influencing Txtese were inputs and the environmental factors box could be solely comprised of memes being that they basically encompass the entirety of a culture and its imitable phenomena.
In an attempt to downplay this issue, I approached Txtese much like one would a business, using ʻTxtese Evolutionʼ as the preferred outcome. The other side of the argument, that of Txtese being a revolution (i.e. a paradigm-shifting innovation), was included as an alternative in the feedback process. Should the idea of Txtese being a revolution be embraced by the bulk of society, in order for popular opinion to shift back to that of Txtese being an evolution the actuators would need to be reevaluated and adjusted.
Unfortunately, the actuators and memes have a reciprocal relationship in regards to influence (i.e. they are constantly influencing each other). This would indicate that not only the actuators would have to be adjusted, but the memes, or the environmental factor, would need to be adjusted as well as they are not necessarily effected by the actuators in a linear manner. As indicated above, this adjustment should be visualized as having a reciprocal relationship with the inputs. Language is democratic, so the entirety of society would have to decide upon Txtese evolution as the preferred outcome and then agree upon which actuators needed to be adjusted. In other words, for this diagram to work as it was designed and in this context, humanity would have to take an objective standpoint in the evaluation of its own behavior and reach a common consensus as to how it needed to be altered. So again, the idea of one person or a small group of people being able to control human language evolution is not likely, if not impossible, and therefore this diagram can only exist as a snapshot of the factors involved in the reciprocal nature of Txtese evolution itself and not something that can be adjusted to reach one particular outcome.
Being that many of the inputs were also environmental influences and vice versa, I had a bit of a problem in deciding which factors needed to be included in each category. I eventually concluded that all of the factors influencing Txtese were inputs and the environmental factors box could be solely comprised of memes being that they basically encompass the entirety of a culture and its imitable phenomena.
Overall, it seems as if the Control Diagram would be the least beneficial choice in regards to the representation of the idea of the evolution of Txtese as well as any other extremely abstract concept lacking a clear, logistical goal that can be achieved through more objective analysis and adjustment.
SWOT Diagram
Analysis: While appearing to be the most straightforward, the SWOT Diagram actually seems to leave a large amount of room for the readjustment and/or alternate placement of the elements comprising the main idea. For instance, my perception of Txtese is that it is a linguistic evolution based largely on shorthand and technology. Technology, however, can be both a strength and weakness in relation to evolution of Txtese as we know it. By specifying certain aspects of technology and its possible affects, it is easier to place certain items into either a strength or weakness category. Even with the specifications, however, a certain aspect or tangible of technology (i.e. a smart phone) is subject to change and could then be moved from the weaknesses category to the strengths category.
I find the SWOT diagram particularly interesting when applied to an issue, such as linguistic evolution versus
linguistic revolution, that is highly debatable. It seems as if it would be an effective tool to use to gain insights into each person’s particular perception of the issue at hand. For example, if ten people were in a room discussing something such as this, they could each develop a SWOT diagram and then use it as a communication device. If the SWOT diagrams were juxtaposed on a large wall for everyone to view, it may lead to a bit of invaluable insight that may not have surfaced had the issue been merely debated verbally.
linguistic revolution, that is highly debatable. It seems as if it would be an effective tool to use to gain insights into each person’s particular perception of the issue at hand. For example, if ten people were in a room discussing something such as this, they could each develop a SWOT diagram and then use it as a communication device. If the SWOT diagrams were juxtaposed on a large wall for everyone to view, it may lead to a bit of invaluable insight that may not have surfaced had the issue been merely debated verbally.
One issue I had with the SWOT diagram as it was presented in the book is that the weighting of various elements is not taken into account. This could be solved simply by adjusting the font sizes and weights, or by adding a color-coding system as an indicator.
