128 LANGUAGE AND THE INTERNET
the option of greater levels of informality than are found elsewhere
in traditional writing. But as the medium matures, it is becoming
apparentthatitisnotexclusivelyaninformalmedium,andreceived
opinion is going to have to change. Hale and Scanlon observe:
‘A well-written electronic missive gets to the point quickly, with
evocative words, short grafs, and plenty of white space. Spelling and
punctuation are loose and playful. (No-one reads email with red
pen in hand.)’^39 The evidence is growing that an awful lot of people
actually do keep such a pen in mind, in educational, business,
and other workplace settings, where e-mails are routinely seen as
providing a more convenient professionalism (one that can speed
up decision-making and build strong daily working relationships)
rather than just an opportunity for a chat. Certainly, the spirit
of the e-mail style manuals is very much towards being careful,
stressing the communicative limitations of the medium (suchas
those discussed in chapter 2). In due course, this emphasis seems
likelytogainground.Theresultwillbeamediumwhichwillportray
awiderangeofstylisticexpressiveness,fromformaltoinformal,just
as other mediums have come to do, and where the pressure on users
will be to display stylistic consistency, in the same way that this is
requiredinotherformsofwriting.^40 E-mailwillthentakeitsplacein
theschoolcurriculum,notasamediumtobefearedforitslinguistic
irresponsibility (because it allows radical graphological deviance)
but as one which offers a further domain within which children
can develop their ability to consolidate their stylistic intuitions
and make responsible linguistic choices. E-mail has extended the
language’s stylistic range in interesting and motivating ways. In my
view, it is an opportunity, not a threat, for language education.
(^39) Hale and Scanlon (1999: 3).
(^40) Baron (2000: 242) also concludes that two styles of e-mail will emerge in due course,
one edited, the other unedited. Punctuation preferences, likewise, are likely to evolve two
standards, one following grammatical prescriptions, the other following the rhetorical
patterns of speech.