"Textese" is Not Good and here's why...

[Kpt._Rob]

I'm not going to argue that textese should become the language of scholarly writing. I never use it myself, even when I am texting. That said, I do imagine it could, much like short hand writing, have a legitimate place wherein it could have some advantages. Not only that, I suspect that as time goes by we will actually see some of these text words become integrated into the primary language, simply because they are used so frequently. The fact that it has no place in scholarly writing right now is not a complete argument, because it doesn't take into account the fact that languages change over time.

 

[Lilani]

Pretty soon, we'll all be speaking and writing some form of Newspeak. Though hopefully not for the reasons of thought suppression Orwell suggests, but it'll eventually happen. We've already started with adding things like "lol" and "omg" into the dictionary.

1984, here we come...

See, I don't have a problem with LOL. And this is why:


Basically, it fulfills a purpose that no other term in the English language can (without sounding unnecessarily drawn out or awkward). Be careful where you tread on things like this--it is very easy to write off the development of a language as the degeneration of it. I mean, Shakespeare made up words left and right, and now nobody is the wiser.

Anyway, I think as long as we don't lower our standards and expectations for formal writing, "textese" will not mar the English language as much as some people think it will. What they should be worried about is the improper teaching and use of terms and grammar that people THINK are correct and formal, but are not. At least with textese, they know they are using the words incorrectly and informally.

Meanwhile, there are millions running around who actually think it's "supposed to of" rather than "supposed to have." And that is not the result of textese. It's the result of an inadequate knowledge of grammatical structure, and I think it's because people don't read as much. You learn little intricacies like that by seeing them in context. And the best way to see text written out on context is to read. Unfortunately, recreational reading isn't quite as common of a hobby anymore (since we now have so many other things to do instead). But that's a story for another day.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I'm not going to argue that textese should become the language of scholarly writing. I never use it myself, even when I am texting. That said, I do imagine it could, much like short hand writing, have a legitimate place wherein it could have some advantages. Not only that, I suspect that as time goes by we will actually see some of these text words become integrated into the primary language, simply because they are used so frequently. The fact that it has no place in scholarly writing right now is not a complete argument, because it doesn't take into account the fact that languages change over time.

Language changes over time, but there are current rules of writing in the academic/professional sectors that should be observed.

As the language changes, the current rules will change too.

So the argument is not incomplete. The language changes, and the rules will eventually folloow suit. Unless of course you're going to argue that the rules of writing established by the MLA, APA, or AP should not be followed, but then you'd be opening up a big can of worms.

 

[Naeo]

Speaking as a Linguistics student, while textese is awful for spelling, it actually does improve one's communication in general. You have to be concise in what you say above and beyond chopping out vowels and consonants, because text messages and twitter updates limit how much you can say, and nobody reads long Facebook posts. Fundamentally, they're still using the same words ("wer r u goin" = "where are you going," a perfectly normal sentence) and same sentences by and large as everyone else.

Textese is only negatively impacting spelling from everything I've seen. The people who use shitty English would be using shitty English anyways, with or without text messages and the internet. It should not be accepted as a formal, academic, professional, etc method of communication, but it shouldn't be demonized as "the downfall of English" or "end end of literacy" or whatnot. It's just a different orthography for the same language.

 

[ShadowKatt]

It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

"It wasn't rape. She was asking for it wearing a short skirt"

The implied message at work.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Anyway, I think as long as we don't lower our standards and expectations for formal writing, "textese" will not mar the English language as much as some people think it will.

That's the issue, though. As this sort of communication becomes more and more common, especially among teenagers and young adults, there is a certain expectation that certain shorthand SHOULD be allowed in formal writing, as I showed in my anecdote.

I'm with you that some people are more alarmist about it than they should be, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I do think that "textese" does more harm than good for the development of writing skills.

 

[Jodah]

Sounds more like stupid people being stupid. Anyone who argues that txtspk is acceptable in academic works needs beaten to death with a dictionary...

 

[Blueruler182]

So should we all be speaking with a british accent and saying "aye verily" all the time? Language degradation is an ugly way of phrasing what is actually a non-issue. Language evolution. We speak the way we do today because of language degradation. I'll admit hearing someone say the letters instead of the words irritates me, but what this is is our language, like everything in life, moving forward, adapting to the new world. We're having a lot of this in every field as technology moves forward, finding ways to use it to help simplify our lives. And your students have a point. Words are a communicative tool, so long as the person understands what's being said it doesn't matter how it's being said. There's no mental degradation from this, no lack of understanding on what's being taught, what's been done in the past, what they're reading. It's simply how the language is moving forward.

A good argument would have been that in a career area being articulate and professional is necessity. Or simply tell your students it's a gramatic error and they'll lose marks.

 

[Leemaster777]

*massive snip*

Preach on, my fellow lover of the English language. I couldn't agree with you more on the subject.

As others have said, it's fine when it's used in an actual text, and sometimes on things like Facebook, but if we don't reinforce the importance of proper spelling and grammar, then what's the point of even teaching English in the first place?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Can we please stop calling it Textese it is not a language can we not just call it Text Talk and stop treating it like a legitimate language?

OT: As long as it stays in internet games and mobile texts I have no problem with it but I think people just need a larger focus on grammar and spelling. I know it may seem pointless but unless said person is dyslexic have spelling and grammar be worth more marks in exams and this would warrant spending more time on those areas.

Text Talk or 1337 speak has no place in the academic world or even on internet forums where it is not needed. It is fine in small doses but trying reading a whole post in text talk and thankfully it is not done here or in the few places I've been. So once again if it stays where it belongs(where speed is necessary) society will not collapse.

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

I've not used "textese" (I hate that word by the way) since I was about fourteen. When I was fourteen, I was definitely and idiot*.

I've found that by sending text messages that are spelt correctly, grammatically satisfying and punctuated properly, most people now reply in the same way.

I'm no English student, I'm a numbers guy, so I'm not always perfect. However, it is absolutely lovely receiving messages that could at least get passing grades in an English exam, when looking at the very first texts from the same person would lead you to believe that their phone didn't allow any word more than five characters long.

Am I normal?
I'm aware that the above suggests that I'm definitely not.

*I wasn't academically stupid, I just thought that words like "random" and "lol" were perfectly acceptable to use. I'd never actually use "lol" in spoken conversation though.
If you do that - without irony - you don't deserve any respect ever.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes because colloquialisms are evil that's why we don't teach metaphors, idioms, and other nonsense phrases to students in schools.

I honestly don't give a crap if people use textspeek since its just a dialect or slang. The only thing kids need to learn to do is be able to interpret which types of speech and language is appropriate for which situation. You don't use textspeek to write an essay the same way you don't swear in front of your boss. Anyone who has a burning problem with the very notion of a dialect clearly has no idea how language and culture work or is too single-mindedly devoted to rules.

 

[Neuromaster]

...today I actually saw this thread (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.313258-Textese-seems-to-help-develop-english-skills-not-hinder) actually DEFENDING the use of text speak, quoting "scholarly" articles (that were not seemingly not peer-reviewed). These articles claim that the use of text speak shorthand, such as "plz," is actually helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," and, thus, text speak is not leading to a degeneration of language.

Why does this strike you as not peer reviewed? A very brief check of the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning where the results were published at least seem like it has a peer review process [http://jcal.info/manuscript_review_policy/index.htm]. I'm not an expert at all, but it seems legit on its face.

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

This line of thinking, this mindset, is definitely degenerative. Maybe not to the terminal point that some people believe, but it certainly isn't helping people learn reading and writing skills, as some people attempt to claim.

I guess I'm just not thrilled about you presenting your personal anecdote as "debunking" the study. Traditionally, that word is usually employed with a little more scholarly perspective. I 100% sympathize with your frustration seeing non-academic language in an academic setting, and I acknowledge that headlines like "Textese gr8 training 4 poets of 2moro" could make a teacher want to tear his/her hair out. I guess I'd just prefer to see more people (especially educators) "debunking" the lousy science writing rather than the source study.

The less said about the news writeups the better - they're sub-par at best. Still, I think the actual study is not implausible. From what I could tell from the abstract, the core data of the study the media latched on to was that frequent texters read on average no worse and sometimes better than infrequent texters. I can believe that; contractions and abbreviations can train our eyes for the most salient letters of common phrases without having to read whole words one letter at a time. That sounds less controversial (and less exciting), right?

TLDR: I'm not convinced the actual study is BS, but I think it's obfuscated rather than revealed by bad science writing

 

[ReverendJ]

Hi. Just want to point out that if the students are reaching you with this behavior pattern in place (i.e. using txtspk in academic writing and trying to justify it), then you have a *bunch* of failures for coworkers. Theoretically that sort of stupid bullshit should've been beaten out of them by a previous teacher.

That said, I routinely troll my roommate by claiming that "gooder" is a word, as it is a collection of sounds that convey an obvious meaning. I then tell him he's just mad because I'm a way gooder grammatician than he is. This, however, is trolling to illustrate a point. Perhaps you could try something similar with your classes.

 

[awesomebillfromdawsonville]

The simple fact is that textese is only used for simple words. It doesn't help the manipulation of phonetics because it only deals with words that a fucking 6 year old should be able to spell.

By all means, use textese while using a phone, it's quicker etc (I don't personally), but don't bring that shit into any other written medium.

^^^This

 

[awesomebillfromdawsonville]

Pretty soon, we'll all be speaking and writing some form of Newspeak. Though hopefully not for the reasons of thought suppression Orwell suggests, but it'll eventually happen. We've already started with adding things like "lol" and "omg" into the dictionary.

1984, here we come...

Newspeak removes unwanted words. This is the exact opposite.

What kind of goddamn retard would write plz or rofl in an essay, holy shit. It doesn't do any good, but you can't really stop it.

If I were a teacher and saw any of this bullshit on an essay or any assignment, that would be an automatic "F-". I'd let my students know from the beginning of the school year so that they'd already get that shit out of their heads in my class. If I were a teacher, I'd be an education thug.