Finding an identity 77
privileged writing over speech, formality over informality. Internet
manuals are doing the reverse. It is prescriptivism nonetheless. And
it is a worrying kind of prescriptivism because it is doing precisely
what the old grammars did – reducing the potential richness and
versatility of a medium of communication. It should be possible to
make use of the Internet for formal as well as for informal purposes,
to express elaborate as well as succinct messages. The more we can
express stylistic contrasts and nuances in Netspeak, the more pow-
erful a linguistic medium it will be. I have no problem at all with
the many e-mails I receive which begin ‘Dear David’ (contraven-
ing the newspaper advice above). I can see immediately that such
messages are more formal than those which begin ‘Dave baby’, or
whatever. And I can also see a functional contrast with those which
begin with no name at all, such as this morning’s junk-mail which
tells me directly, and without naming me at all, that I can be a
millionaire by the weekend and have my sex-drive improved at
the same time. Other address variations exist, such as the location
of the addressee’s name at the top or integrated within the first
sentence, and these convey further expressive nuances. Internet
guides need to recognize the presence of all these options, which
help to make Netspeak a more powerful and expressive medium,
rather than to go for one and reject the others. The relevantWired
Stylesection concludes: ‘On the web, you forget your audience
at your peril’, which is wise advice, linguistically well-grounded.
But no single stylistic recommendation can suit the expecta-
tions of the range of audiences that the Internet is now reaching.
And to advocate one (albeit unintentionally) is to be unhelpfully
prescriptive.
Wired Style’s second principle leads to a similar conclusion. It
is headed ‘Play with voice’, a phrase repeated in its summary:
‘Celebrate subjectivity. Write with attitude. Play with voice.’ Voice
here refers to the personal element in communication:
We respond to voice. Not the clear-but-oh-so-conventional voice
of Standard Written English. Not the data-drowned voice of
computer trade journals. And not the pureed voice of the ́
mainstream press. The voice of the quirky, individualist writer.