Technology and Language Change (Blog Post 3 of 4)

In the article, “GR8 news: We’re entering a new era of literacy,” Erin Anderssen says, “It’s not Plato versus Google. It’s Plato and Google.”  What does this quote mean to you?  Have you taken the same approach Anderssen mentions?  Has this idea (or would it have) helped your writing skills?  Be sure to touch upon your own personal writing experiences in your response.

(Visited 159 times, 1 visits today)
This entry was posted in . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Technology and Language Change (Blog Post 3 of 4)

  1. MM24 says:

    The quote “It’s not Plato versus Google. It’s Plato and Google” sums up the entire technology and language change argument. Essentially, this quote means that when a person is looking for information, he or she “cannot” rely solely on textbooks or the Internet. Instead, because of the advancement of technology and the vastness of the Internet, it is much more beneficial nowadays to use both. So much information is available online now, but the classic information can still always be found.

    When I first read the quote, I immediately thought of my own personal experience of researching for papers for my college classes. In the process of researching, I have absolutely taken the same approach of “Plato and Google” that Anderssen mentions in the article. The approach has helped me because of the range of information I am able to cite in papers. On a similar note, I agree with Anderssen in suggesting, “learning how to make a strong argument in writing has never been a more vital skill” (4). Personally, I have been taught numerous times to create strong arguments in writing and believe that both books and the Internet have important information to offer. Overall, using both “Plato and Google” is extremely important because of the advancement of technology and information available from both sources.

  2. Osprey says:

    I agree with MM24 when they declared that “It’s not Plato versus Google. It’s Plato and Google” “sums up the entire technology and language change argument,” because
    I feel like this link implicates different aspects of the digital and temporal worlds. The first point is one that MM24 has already covered, and that is the way we research and compile information. Since we, as a society, have grown increasingly connected and reliant on the Internet, we, as students, are expected to draw from much more than our minds or the books we find at our university library. For example, in Professor Lunsford’s research indicated that “25 years ago, the most common assignment was a personal narrative, first-year students today are most often assigned papers requiring a thesis and sources” and, therefore, requiring “higher-ordered thinking skills and complexity” from students (Anderssen 2).

    I don’t feel like I’ve had trouble determining the credibility of different sources, but I do have to pay attention to how the information is presented and by whom. An inconceivable amount of data is accessible instantly, so that expediency certainly weighs into not only the magnitude and nature of sources, but the way we use and incorporate different sets of data and how we form our pieces. The Internet is dominated by opinions and biased institutions and individuals, so it is very easy to find articles and the like with a certain slant – factual or not. The quote of interest as well as the article mentions the philosophers Plato and Aristotle; their thoughts on rhetoric are more relevant than ever as we apply our writing to a greater sphere of uses.

  3. muskoka1 says:

    Mr. Otuteye’s quote reflects the generational conflict that has emerged within the past two decades. To use Plato and Google in harmony is the only viable solution at this point. Plato symbolizes books and the “old-fashioned” way to research, read, etc… while Google symbolizes today and the high-speed rate at which my generation does everything. Why can’t the two come together to produce an extraordinary result whether it be a research paper, a novel, or a blog post? Any good researcher knows that sources must be legitimate and cited properly; whether citing a book or the internet, this is the golden rule. Essentially, it is the same thing. Last year, I took a class in which I had to give a very short presentation on two commonly confused words: affect versus effect. I walked into the classroom and the teacher reminded everyone that I would explain the differences between the two words in a few minutes. Unfortunately, I completely forgot about my responsibility; however, I pulled out my iPod and quickly discerned the meaning between the two words. I even found a few good tricks to keep in mind. I was able to present my quick explanation with ease all because of the internet. I have gone back to the website that rescued me many times when I was in need of a grammar tip. It goes to show that the internet can be extremely useful, especially when a book is no longer an option.

    MM24 and Osprey focused mostly on research; however, this doesn’t just apply to conducting research. For me, this affects my daily life because I like to write. When I write a piece of fiction, I don’t agonize over creating a perfect grammatical piece; instead, I focus on producing an effective and original story. If I have to bend a few rules to get my point across then so be it. I know other writers feel the same way and will push the boundaries farther than I will. We write for fun. We write what we want.We write the way we feel without second thoughts because overanalyzing in that moment could ruin it. Anderssen acknowledges this fact when she says, “Only 62 per cent [sic] of the writing (of 15,000 samples) was done for class assignments – the rest of the samples were other items the students submitted voluntarily” (Anderssen). I definitely think that Anderssen’s article and his approach to writing says something about my generation. We like to push the boundaries in everything, not just writing. It’s the older generations and the newer generations colliding – taking old ideas and twisting and turning them into something new and appropriate for us. I’m not saying we’re making things better, we are only being different.

  4. mlhuxta says:

    Erin Anderssen touches on an important point when she acknowledges the presence of both Plato and Google in our culture as means to gaining information and education. In no way do I think she is equating Google to the revered work of Plato, however I do believe she is stating that both old, scholarly works and the Internet hold a significant place in our world. It is evident that technology is permeating society on many levels.

    In my college experience, I have read Shakespeare, Plato, Rousseau, yet have Googled or used Wikipedia as sources to gain clarity on tough subjects. Almost daily I catch up on the news via the Internet. I’ve learned to use all of the resources available to me, which includes both classical books and the Internet. The difference between a tangible book and the Internet is that one is reliable while the other’s reliability is questionable. With the Internet, we have to be a bit more cautious about what we’re reading; we cannot believe all the information out there and it is essential to check the site in an effort to verify its legitimacy. Seeing that a classical book or textbook is published in most cases verifies its credibility immediately.

    Having an abundance of resources and the quickly accessible Internet has contributed to my writing skills. It is less complicated to gather more information when writing a paper or attempting to grasp a difficult concept. Also, having blogs, the news, articles, etc at my fingertips makes it much easier to see examples of good writing and be well acquainted with the appropriate language for writing.