WEB 2.0 TOOLS AND THEIR USE IN THE LINGUISTIC SPACES OF OUR SOCIETY

1. To what extent do patterns of Web 2.0 technologies used in your field of study (English and Applied Linguistics) align with what it means to be a so-called digital native? 

Technology will be always the best tool to use in everything, because the language will be translated into other media, specializing in electronic and new age media or multimedia, technology is the best instrument that one can use to deal with languages, especially for those who are the best at using technology. That innovation will be more prevalent in people who wish to conduct research in Namibian or African languages. The language can be utilized in a variety of ways while using the 2.0 web because it can be found anywhere for comments and updates. Otjiherero and other indigenous languages, for example, can be simply translated from English to Otjiherero and vice versa. Mohammed (2011) provided several examples, stating that various institutions in England and the United States have begun to adopt Arabic as a second language, with the 2.0 web being used to translate Arabic into English or English into Arabic in this case. It is apparent that the 2.0 web is being exploited to make work easier, and digital natives will be able to program or install the software in those media for use in language translation. The blend of diverse 2.0 web shows that unknown dialects will appear in all media and will be simple for those who are familiar with specific 2.0 web. Content and Language Integrated Learning methods that leverage technology such as the 2.0 web to show languages in open techniques are also employed in Content and Language Integrated Learning. It is obvious that the 2.0 Web will ensure that local languages can be computerized and accessed by anybody, allowing them to be used as required by fourth-generation technology.

 

2. How do you use Web 2.0 technologies for academic versus non-academic purposes to reflect on the use of functional literacy in your socio-linguistic and socio-cultural context?

In this situation, both academics and non-academics can use 2.0 for the same purpose; the first step for both is to use the 2.0 Web for socio-linguistic communication because, in most media, the first step is to interact with others based on what is happening in your immediate environment as well as in other countries. According to Thomas & Thomas (2012), the 2.0 Web has evolved into one of the world's most acceptable entertainment Webs, whether for an individual or a group. One can be related to a group of people who are present, but everyone is engrossed in their devices, connected to those who are not present. A person can be alone, but he or she feels more like a part of others who are present. On occasion, one can perform on a virtual stage by entertaining people who are not there via 2.0 Web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, and other Google 2.0 websites. These are crucial 2.0 because they bring people together and are the ideal tools to utilize in the classroom (Christensen 1997; Mutula, 2013).

 

An academic can use the 2.0 Web to teach an individual or a group, which distinguishes them from non-academics because an academic can use the 2.0 Web for education as well as to market themselves to the public on what they specialize in and what they can do, whereas the majority of non-academics use the 2.0 Web for social and other entertainment. In terms of socio-cultural and academics, Uerimanga Tjijombo, who comes from a strong cultural background in the Ovahimba tribe and Ovadhimba community, used the 2.0 Web to introduce his culture and tradition to those who are unfamiliar with it, as well as to those Ovahimba and Ovadhimba who are hardly practising their culture, particularly those who grew up in towns and cities. Himbacracy Philosophy and Dhimaba Phenomenal are concepts coined by Uerimanga Tjijombo to teach Ovahimba and Ovadhimba how to utilize the 2.0 Web to include their languages and to teach others how to use the 2.0 Web. This is a quick way to get information, and it always includes features and upgrades that make everyone's job easier (Mutula, 2013). Non-academics may use these technologies to make jokes, while academics use them to teach and keep up with cultural developments.

3. Discuss what Communicative Competence is and give examples as to how Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) tools can be used effectively in a specific linguistic context that you can relate to.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) was invented and offered to the world several years ago as the ideal medium of instruction for learners to use in and out of the classroom. Since there was a need for learners to understand the languages, Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) was developed, taking into account the languages used by the communities. The system was created in both written and oral form. CMC has been utilized and considered for phonetics in particular; it is an excellent approach for teachers to analyze language specialists in English.

The system, for example, incorporates a 2.0 Web email system, a network, and another online program. It is the greatest solution for distant learning and having an online discussion, as well as videoconferencing and other web-based, recording, and online calls. It has been regarded as one of the best systems for usage in the classroom, according to Gladiux and Swail (1999). It has been connected to computers and has mediated between different channels (Rafaeli, 1988). Messages can be transmitted across devices via CMC, and the message is simple to comprehend and reaches the next person on time.

4. What are some of the new literacy practices would you suggest in your everyday communicative practice, especially in dealing with Web 2.0 communication tools (social media)?

Technology is here to stay, and it's critical to stay connected to any 2.0 Web that emerges, because 2.0 Webs don't all work the same and don't support all devices. There are many various types of media to use, but I would suggest using the 2.0 Web, which includes blogs, social networks (Facebook), microblogs (Twitter), wikis (Wikipedia), video podcasts, and photo sharing (Instagram and Snapchat). Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and WhatsApp, for example, can share various types of information across several platforms. Thome (2010) explains that everybody can find or use the best 2.0 Web for him or her because everyone has their own perspective about what is greatest for them. As a 2.0 Web expert, I have a few tools to recommend. For individuals who want to express themselves in writing, I would recommend several blogs such as bloggers or Word-Press, as well as Google Drive. You may utilize Google Drive in a variety of ways, and it has a lot to do with it.

Whatsapp, Facebook, Linkedin, Clubhouse, and Twitter are some of the greatest instant messaging apps that may be used to answer quickly. Because the majority of people on the planet are connected to them, a 2.0 Web is the greatest. Another 2.0 Web that I may offer to someone because of the network connection is that 2.0 Web such as Podcast and Slack are for online radio because some individuals are talented at writing and are willing to listen and reply. This is significant in linguistics because certain people excel at teaching others through multiple platforms. Students and instructors will engage in diverse needs on the 2.0 Web, and they will be able to readily correct each other. On these platforms, the majority of software and applications, as well as photographs, videos, and communications, are shared. Different languages are being used to communicate in this scenario. Language experience can be shared, and people can enhance their language skills while also airing their opinions (Selwyn, 2012).

References 

Christensen, C M. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma. Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Gladieux, L. E., & Swail, W. S. (1999). Who will have access to the virtual university?. AAHE BULLETIN, 52, 7-9.

Mohammed, T. A. S. (2011). A taxonomy of problems in Arabic-English translation: A systematic functional grammar approach (PhD Thesis). University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. Mohammed, T. A. S. (2011). A taxonomy of problems in Arabic- English translation: A systematic functional grammar approach (PhD Thesis).  University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.

Mutula, S M. 2013. Ethical Dimension of the Information Society: implications for Africa. In Information Ethics in Africa: Cross-Cutting Themes, Pretoria: AC, 29-42

Rafaeli, S. (1988). From new media to communication. Sage annual review of communication research: Advancing communication science, 16, 110-134.

Selwyn, N. (2012). Social Media in Higher Education. The Europa World of Learning. Routledge. www.worldoflearning.com.Retrieved 18 June 2017 from http://www.educationarena.com/pdf/sample/sample-essay-selwyn.pdf

Thomas, M. & Thomas, H. 2012. Using new social media and Web 2.0 technologies in business school teaching and learning, Journal of Management Development. 31(4), 358 – 367

Thorne, S. L. (2010). The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of new media. In  F. Helm & S. Guth (eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0 for Language and Intercultural Learning (pp. 139 164). Bern: Peter Lang.