Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-7lw58 Total loading time: 0.714 Render date: 2023-02-03T04:11:39.006Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Redefining Reading: The Impact of Digital Communication Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

It's not a book. It doesn't have a smell, you don't touch it …, you're plugged into the internet, you can't concentrate, it hurts your eyes, and you lose the beauty of the words behind this screen. Life itself is in hard copy. … Not this treacherous digitalism which has permeated our lives and our reality.

—Respondent to survey comparing on-screen with hard-copy reading

Each new technology may be janus-faced, potentially improving and degrading the human condition. The steam engine made industrial products cheaper and more diverse but contributed to the exploitation of child labor and proliferation of squalid urban living conditions. The automobile makes transportation more convenient but pollutes and leads to countless highway deaths. Calculators let anyone perform feats of math but have weakened basic arithmetic skills.

A related conundrum holds true for technologies of the written word. The printing press helped spread literacy but shook the foundations of the Catholic Church. Word processing enabled the Japanese to generate text without producing each kanji stroke by stroke, but now many Japanese find themselves forgetting the stroke order. The spelling checkers in word-processing programs monitor typographical errors but dampen motivation to master spelling.

Information and communication technologies have generated new platforms on which to read. The list includes desktop and laptop computers, e-readers (such as the Kindle and Nook), tablet computers (e.g., the iPad), and handheld devices (e.g., the iPod Touch, mobile phones). But does reading on these devices differ from reading in hard copy? If so, does our growing dependence on reading onscreen contribute to a redefinition of what it means to read?

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by The Modern Language Association of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Altick, Richard D. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1957. Print.Google Scholar
Baker, Nicholson. “A New Page: Can the Kindle Really Improve on the Book?The New Yorker. Condé Nast, 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Naomi S.Attitudes towards Mobile Phones: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” Cultures of Participation. Ed. Greif, Hajo, Hjorth, Larissa, Lasen, Amparo, and Lobet, Claire. Frankfurt: Lang, 2011. 7794. Print.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S.Reading in Print versus Onscreen: Better, Worse, or About the Same?Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Ed. Deborah Tannen and Anna Marie Trester. Washington: Georgetown UP, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: Norton, 2010. Print.Google Scholar
Club, Caxton. Other People's Books: Association Copies and the Stories They Tell. Introd. G. Thomas Tanselle. New Castle: Oak Knoll, 2011. Print.Google Scholar
Cull, Barry W.Reading Revolutions: Online Digital Text and Implications for Reading in Academe.” First Monday 16.6 (2011): n. pag. Web. 26 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
Goodyear, Dana. “Letters from Japan: I Novels.” New Yorker 22 Dec. 2008: 22-29. Print.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Susan. “Does the Mind Have a Future?Oxford Internet Institute. U of Oxford, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
Griswold, Wendy, McDonnell, Terry, and Wright, Nathan. “Readers and Reading in the Twenty-First Century.” Annual Review of Sociology 31 (2005): 127–41. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A Ciber Briefing Paper. JISC. Joint Information Systems Committee, 11 Jan. 2008. Web. 26 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
Jackson, H. J. Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books. New Haven: Yale UP, 2002. Print.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan. The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan. “We Can't Teach Students to Love Reading.” TheGoogle Scholar
Chronicle Review. Chronicle of Higher Educ., 31 July 2011. Web. 26 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
Liu, Ziming. “Print vs. Electronic Resources: A Study of User Perceptions, Preferences, and Use.” Information Processing and Management 42.2 (2006): 583–92. Print.Google Scholar
Manguel, Alberto. A History of Reading. New York: Viking, 1996. Print.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Jakob. “How Users Read on the Web.” Useit.com. N.p., 1 Oct. 1997. Web. 26 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
Saenger, Paul. “The Impact of the Early Printed Page on the History of Reading.” The History of the Book in the West, 1455-1700. Ed. Gadd, Ian. Vol. 2. Surrey: Ashgate, 2010. 385449. Print.Google Scholar
Saenger, Paul. Space between Words: The Origin of Silent Reading. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Sellen, Abigail, and Harper, Richard. The Myth of the Paperless Office. Cambridge: MIT P, 2002. Print.Google Scholar
Small, Gary W., and Vorgan, Gigi. iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind. New York: Harper, 2008. Print.Google Scholar
Steiner, George. “After the Book?Visible Language 6.3 (1972): 197210. Print.Google Scholar
Ulin, David L. The Lost Art of Reading: Why Books Matter in a Distracted Time. Seattle: Sasquatch, 2010. Print.Google Scholar
Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding. Berkeley: U of California P, 1957. Print.Google Scholar
Wolf, Maryanne, and Barzillai, Mirit. “The Importance of Deep Reading.” Educational Leadership 66.6 (2009): 3237. Print.Google Scholar
16
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Redefining Reading: The Impact of Digital Communication Media
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Redefining Reading: The Impact of Digital Communication Media
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Redefining Reading: The Impact of Digital Communication Media
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *