Due to a broken shoulder I'm down to one working hand at the moment and as a result have been writing a lot on my phone using swype. Apart from finding it actually easier and more efficient than trying to stab away on a laptop, once again I find myself thinking about the method itself, and whether there might be a qualitative difference in using it.
Writing with swype is actually very much like writing with a pen, in that one sweeps gracefully through the word one letter at a time, and I could imagine that this involves a different mental focus when compared to proper double handed typing (or even its two fingered virtual keyboard cousin). With typing, the word is pumped out almost as a unit, via an automatic burst of key strokes which are almost in parallel, and there is little thought or feeling of the individual letters that constitute it (which might explain my tendency in emails to mix up similarly sounding words, like "are", "our" and "or"). But when writing with a pen, or swype, one must deliberately spell out the word, letter by letter, and this must involve slightly different thinking? If only because one must wait until each word has fully resolved itself, and made that bit more of an impression, before one can fully turn one's attention to the next. Maybe it is even similar to the difference between the old way in which reading was taught, with the focus on the full word as a whole, and the new phonics method of teaching, which is supposed to be more effective. The fact that the two styles of instruction differ in effectiveness indicates a difference in mental processing, between gulping the word down as a block, and slowly sipping it in in chunks.
It must be possible to devise studies that could analyse this, e.g. by comparing paragraphs written with the different methods, and it would be interesting to see if there is any variation in style, flow or word choice. For example, maybe the rapid fire of typing encourages free association, with words and ideas leading almost unconsciously to the next, and maybe in contrast the slow plodding pen (or swype) results in more deliberate thought. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but think our mental processing can be so influenced by subtle things, that such phenomena are definitely possible. And, since digital writing is now the norm, even being common place in schools etc. , replacing the centuries old tradition of inscription, then it is surely a topic worthy of study. Online and in archives we are what we write, so it is important to know if how we write matters.
Of course, maybe we just haven't developed the same proficiency in swype as have in typing, and lost that proficiency through disuse in writing by hand, so even if mental differences now, maybe would converge over time. Again this is something which could be tested, for example by comparing types and swypes of subjects with varying skill.
However, I think it will always be true that swype/pen is slower and requires more effort, since the letters come out serially while typing is more parallel, and maybe this contains the significant difference. And this extra effort is I think a good thing - I am reminded of the Ents in the Lord of the Rings, with their excruciatingly labourious language, which was so drawn and took so long to say anything with, that they only ever said something if it was worth taking a long time to say.
What also might be relevant is that writing never used be as natural as speaking (even if not our biological default it is of course still in some way "natural" if we do it all, like wearing clothes), and maybe proficient typing, in being almost automatic, is actually closer to speaking. Which then raises questions about whether 'new' writing is different to 'old', and whether there are any consequences of this.
Or is this maybe changing, at least in certain domains? And should we be aware of this, and maybe learn when each style is more appropriate? The productivity of modern technology also means easier to generate more rubbish, and the sheer volume of comment and statement we can produce might dilute what actually matters, and result in reduced quality, particularly through lack of clarity. Because no matter how effortless it is, speaking relies on accompanying elements beyond the words, such as tone, facial demeanour and expressive sounds, which help convey subtlety and nuance, tools which writing must do without, and hence requires more care and effort to avoid misinterpretation.
Which is why of course rapid text/chat speak was accompanied by the invention of emoticons like smileys, but these are relatively weak aids given the complexity of human expression.
So while we should think before we speak, we must think even more before we write, and maybe slower, serial input methods further this. The pen is mightier than the sword, but the qwerty keyboard is double edged.
Writing with swype is actually very much like writing with a pen, in that one sweeps gracefully through the word one letter at a time, and I could imagine that this involves a different mental focus when compared to proper double handed typing (or even its two fingered virtual keyboard cousin). With typing, the word is pumped out almost as a unit, via an automatic burst of key strokes which are almost in parallel, and there is little thought or feeling of the individual letters that constitute it (which might explain my tendency in emails to mix up similarly sounding words, like "are", "our" and "or"). But when writing with a pen, or swype, one must deliberately spell out the word, letter by letter, and this must involve slightly different thinking? If only because one must wait until each word has fully resolved itself, and made that bit more of an impression, before one can fully turn one's attention to the next. Maybe it is even similar to the difference between the old way in which reading was taught, with the focus on the full word as a whole, and the new phonics method of teaching, which is supposed to be more effective. The fact that the two styles of instruction differ in effectiveness indicates a difference in mental processing, between gulping the word down as a block, and slowly sipping it in in chunks.
It must be possible to devise studies that could analyse this, e.g. by comparing paragraphs written with the different methods, and it would be interesting to see if there is any variation in style, flow or word choice. For example, maybe the rapid fire of typing encourages free association, with words and ideas leading almost unconsciously to the next, and maybe in contrast the slow plodding pen (or swype) results in more deliberate thought. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but think our mental processing can be so influenced by subtle things, that such phenomena are definitely possible. And, since digital writing is now the norm, even being common place in schools etc. , replacing the centuries old tradition of inscription, then it is surely a topic worthy of study. Online and in archives we are what we write, so it is important to know if how we write matters.
Of course, maybe we just haven't developed the same proficiency in swype as have in typing, and lost that proficiency through disuse in writing by hand, so even if mental differences now, maybe would converge over time. Again this is something which could be tested, for example by comparing types and swypes of subjects with varying skill.
However, I think it will always be true that swype/pen is slower and requires more effort, since the letters come out serially while typing is more parallel, and maybe this contains the significant difference. And this extra effort is I think a good thing - I am reminded of the Ents in the Lord of the Rings, with their excruciatingly labourious language, which was so drawn and took so long to say anything with, that they only ever said something if it was worth taking a long time to say.
What also might be relevant is that writing never used be as natural as speaking (even if not our biological default it is of course still in some way "natural" if we do it all, like wearing clothes), and maybe proficient typing, in being almost automatic, is actually closer to speaking. Which then raises questions about whether 'new' writing is different to 'old', and whether there are any consequences of this.
Or is this maybe changing, at least in certain domains? And should we be aware of this, and maybe learn when each style is more appropriate? The productivity of modern technology also means easier to generate more rubbish, and the sheer volume of comment and statement we can produce might dilute what actually matters, and result in reduced quality, particularly through lack of clarity. Because no matter how effortless it is, speaking relies on accompanying elements beyond the words, such as tone, facial demeanour and expressive sounds, which help convey subtlety and nuance, tools which writing must do without, and hence requires more care and effort to avoid misinterpretation.
Which is why of course rapid text/chat speak was accompanied by the invention of emoticons like smileys, but these are relatively weak aids given the complexity of human expression.
So while we should think before we speak, we must think even more before we write, and maybe slower, serial input methods further this. The pen is mightier than the sword, but the qwerty keyboard is double edged.
No comments:
Post a Comment