Computer-Mediated Communication

by TMD

20 comments

1 Chelsey Hauge { 10.21.09 at 9:22 am }

Hey guys– I am trying to contact Peter and Richard about their schools. Anyone have their emails? Peter? Richard? Can you email me? I can be found at: chauge@interchange.ubc.ca
Looking forward to talking with both of you!

2 Melanie Wong { 10.21.09 at 12:43 pm }

Hi Everyone,

Very exciting articles this week for me. It really got me thinking and remembering my own experiences.

Carrington’s (2005) article on txting reminded me of the time (and this has actually happened several times) when a student of mine handed in a journal entry that contained various txt lexicon. At that point in time I was concerned since this was an ESL student. I was concerned that he had not acquired the proper standard English forms yet, so by using txt it could detriment his learning. I remember having a discussion with him about register. In particular how in a classroom/school situation there is a proper/expected way to write for the teacher. I also remember telling him that it was okay to use txt language online and when you text messaged someone etc. but only when the situation was informal.

Carrington (2005) mentions that some people feel standard English is being attacked by txting. She also mentions that some people feel that “txting then is an alien and inferior form of language that is infecting the ‘real’ English language and resulting in lower standards in examinations” (p. 168). Is this really the case? Or do we as teachers need to be changing the way we assess with the times? Banning txting from the classroom will not solve the issues; the reality is that students are constantly engaged in this form of English dialogue and writing. As teachers and scholars we need to embrace this and beg in to recognize the implications it has on our society. If anything, I often find myself txting in my own writing. Even as I was writing this response I caught myself doing it and changing it back to Standard English! I love this quote near the end of the article, “literacy is always a litmus paper for social change and the tensions this creates and the same increasingly holds true in relation to popular culture” (p. 171). This is very true.

While reading Baron’s (2005) article, I thought about how I cannot remember a time when I did not instant message (IM). In fact, it feels like I have been doing it forever but in reality it has only been perhaps 13 to 14 years that I have been IMing. Back in high school I saw IMing as a way to keep in contact with my friends. I also saw it as an opportunity to try out new identities online. Baron (2005) describes how “teens often use spoken language to express small-group identity. It is hardly surprising to find many of them experimenting with a new linguistic medium (such as IM) to complement the identity construction they achieve through speech, clothing, or hair style” (p.30). But I think what is amazing about IMing in general is how people can have multiple windows open at once, and multitask while still having conversations with various people.

In Baron’s (2005) article she discussed her research and she indicated that from her data when teenagers transition to college they drop the informal txt/IM language and take on a more formal academic language. I think she makes an excellent point at the end of her article where she says that we as teachers should provide good models for language, at least when it comes to formal writing. Students will then hopefully choose the right register to use depending on the context.

Lange’s (2008) article on Youtube was really interesting to me. I have never posted a video on Youtube even if I have an account. I do however often go on Youtube to view the videos. The whole idea of social networking really interests me. I think about Facebook, Twitter etc.. and how I can literally not imagine my world without it. I think the idea mentioned in the article that most got me thinking was the idea of “privately public.” There is a comment in the article regarding how this feature of being “privately public” allows individuals to hide their identities so that it doesn’t compromise their professional credibility. I am wondering how you can actually be privately public? I mean, do we actually have privacy online? Yes, we can put all these locks etc.. on our accounts but the realities are that the internet is a public domain. Just got me thinking. I know we have sort of touched on this before.

All my thoughts for now. More to come, I am sure.

Melanie

3 Genevieve Brisson { 10.21.09 at 5:43 pm }

Bonjour Melanie!

Like you, I got caught up in this week’s readings, especially in the article on txting by Carrington. I do not txt, and if I did, I would probably be part of the girls in Baron’s study who are “significantly more likely to type full forms than males”. For me, txting is gibberish. As I write this entry, I keep typing “texting” instead of “txting”. I still have to pause and think every time my younger brother writes lol when we are chatting. And I was glad there was a translation of the text written by the 13-year-old girl, because it made no sense to me. However, I am aware it is out there, and that it is increasingly influencing the way people write. And I think educators should do “something” about it… but what?

I had never heard about the story Carrington refers to in the article, but I am not surprised at hearing you have had a similar experience, Melanie, with one of your students. I really like the fact that you engage in a discussion with him about register. I do believe this is a great way to handle the situation and to envision the issue. I am now asking myself: How do I include the notion of register in my teaching practice? And more importantly, should I “teach” txting? For some kids, it would be very easy, because it is part of their life, of their available design. For others, who are not familiar with txting, it would be a challenge, just like Standard English is challenging to some students. Thinking of the NLG’s pedagogy of multiliteracies, I can see myself using txting in Situated Practice, but I do not yet see myself systematically introducing explicit metalanguages related to this practice because I am unfamiliar with it. Some students could surely teach me…

Does anyone have suggestions? What should we focus on if we include txting in our practice?

4 Peter Hill { 10.21.09 at 7:18 pm }

Hi,

I should probably wait and be thoughtful about the Carrington piece but… what the heck..
I’m actually envious of those that txt. I don’t have any problem with people using it- old or young. I have a problem when it begins to affect the way people think. I imagine you knew this was coming, but here’s a quote from Orwell’s newspeak appendix:

“Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing it were constantly being devised. Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all.”

Not being a txter, I can only guess that the higher brain centers are not involved- that’s not the intent of txting. Still, we needn’t wonder why some students look a bit dazed when we ask them to try to write like Orwell, or Carrington, for that matter.

It’s interesting that Carrington hasn’t written her article in txt speak, but in somewhat logical English. She also suggests that most learning takes place outside the classroom. While I agree to a point, I imagine that her method of writing was probably learned in a classroom of some sort.
One tends to not find peer- reviewed articles on your average streetcorner.

Then strangely, I think of young Robert Burns writing his poems in Scottish dialect. This must have seemed just like txt in its day. To do this just when Samuel Johnson is codifying the English language (and pronunciation) in his dictionary is no less amazing. As Carrington says, language has always changed and adapted.

It’s when the school system INSISTS we communicate in txt that I’ll get really worried.

Peter

5 Melanie Wong { 10.21.09 at 10:04 pm }

Hi again!

Genevieve, thank you for your discussion and your insights. I always want to write, “ttyl” or “lol” on all of my papers! I even have a problem as I write this message back to you not to put smiles etc.. It is horrible! But I am glad you are aware of this, even if txting is gibberish to you. I think part of the reason why it was easier for me to talk about txting and register with my kids was because we had an online distributed environment. I made it clear that they could use txting in the environment if we were having informal discussion. However, in the classroom they should use standard English. But I am beginning to question about standard English too! What about World Englishes? We have so many different forms of English out there. In fact many of my students come into my classroom knowing another form of English. Is there really a standard anymore?

Peter: You made some great points. I think the thought process is very different when it comes to txting. Has there been any studies on this? Does anyone know? I would be interested to read them.

6 Peter Hill { 10.22.09 at 5:51 am }

Hi Melanie and Genevieve,

Believe it or not, I just wrote ‘lol’ on a student’s paper yesterday.

It WAS a funny paragraph; I DID ‘lol,’ while reading it, but jeez- what’s happening to me??? Is it taking over like the swine flu?

Nice little bit in the Sun about the Chinese public’s rejection of changes to their language. ( Sorry – no on-line version yet) Didn’t they go through a simplification of language during Mao’s time?

Peter

7 Genevieve Brisson { 10.22.09 at 6:49 am }

Cher Peter,
Chère Melanie,

What I like about your answers, Peter, both in class and on the blog, is that you know where you stand. And you are being very thoughtful.
I am still trying to figure out my position concerning these issues. I do agree with you, Melanie, that there are many Englishes, but there is still some common ground between them, allowing people to understand each other. I do not think txting should/will replace Standard English. It seems, however, that txting is a new “language” or practice that is becoming increasingly central to teenagers’ (and adults’) life. It is becoming a central element in the construction of their identities. It seems we should somehow address it the school. Thanks again for your example, Melanie, about your online distributed environment. You are way ahead of me in this field.

I do agree with you, Peter: Carrington did not use this new “language” to write her article. She used logical English, and it was easy to follow her argument. As someone using English as a second language, and as an adult learner, I am not interested in learning txting in English. I want to be able to read and write articles and essays, and more. If I was in an ESL adult program in Vancouver, I would absolutely hate it is they used txting to teach me English.

I always draw parallels between our discussions of English and my personal and professional interest in French. I thought your example, Peter, about Chinese public’s rejection of changes to their language was really interesting. It remins me of “la nouvelle orthographe” in French (http://www.orthographe-recommandee.info/index.htm). At the beginning of the 1990s, the Conseil supérieur de la langue française suggested some “rectifications” of the French language. They tried to make French more logical by simplifying spelling, rules of plural forms, etc. It was recommended to use the new spelling and rules, but both old and new forms are still accepted, almost 20 years later. French-speakers like the quirkinesses in their language.

Bonne journée
Geneviève

8 Melanie Wong { 10.22.09 at 9:09 am }

Hi again!

Genevieve and Peter, you are back! I logged on to see if anyone else had replied and was pleasantly surprized! LOL! (I threw that in and didn’t delete it this time!).

Peter, I love how you used txting on your feedback to a student. I am tempted to do that when I got back into the classroom. It must be the swine flu because it is definitely catching!

Genevieve, yes, definitely about the World Englishes and common ground. I agree about your comment about not thinking txting will/should replace Standard English. I think the realities are that it is not replacing but rather complimenting it. Also, languages are constantly evolving, is txting just not another revolution in English? A new dialect, maybe?

I must say that I don’t think teenagers are the only ones using txting. I keep reading all these articles that say the youth are doing this! Most of the articles I read disregard the adults! I am doing this and I am not the youth. I wish there would be more studies that address the people (like me and other adults) that took it on too. I realize I grew up, for the most part, with this lexicon. However, it’s not fair to generalize in a study that the youth are the only ones doing it.

Peter, your comments about the Chinese language rejection are interesting. I am no expert but even I find myself rejecting the simplified characters over traditional ones. I think since most of my family still lives in Hong Kong and uses traditional characters I feel this is the correct form. Genevieve, I didn’t know that about the French language and what happened, thank you for sharing!

TTYL (Talk to you later!)

Melanie

9 Jeff Miller { 10.22.09 at 4:33 pm }

I’ve enjoyed reading the postings so far and have been thinking about my own position on this whole texting issue. Like Genevieve and Peter, I have to align myself with those who like vowels, so even when I am in a texting space, I find it difficult to let go of those letters. Twitter has the same effect on me. What is curious to me is that while a lot of our focus has, so far, been on the fact that youth are texting rather than observing the queen’s English, I find texting has seriously taken off in my professional world. There are many, many people in the educational technology field who avidly text/twitter and whatnot, and the presence of this backchannel, hash-tagged vowel-less stream is fascinating to watch, particularly at conferences. Or, increasingly, I find that a lot of colleagues are following along with conferences/meetings on the other side of the planet via tweets! Next time you are in a big lecture theatre, take a look to see how many students have tweet-deck software open.

For a nice parody of all of this, take a look at this video on the next new thing, Flutter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeLZCy-_m3s

I really liked Carrington’s somewhat playful (though serious) exploration of texting, particularly as she uses the story of the scandal caused by the Scottish girl who submitted a txt essay to such good effect. Carrington effectively illuminates just how many of the responses to this travesty of prose have to do with the power dynamics within and beyond educational institutions.

Carrington draws upon Bourdieu’s theories of cultural and symbolic capital, and it is worthwhile to consider this further in relation to Bourdieu’s ideas about, particularly literary habitus. Bourdieu defines literary habitus as a set of dispositions that we acquire as we learn to speak within particularly contexts that mark us with differences that have symbolic value. Many of you have already referred to these differences in reflecting on your own dis/ease around the act of texting. What does it mean when little brothers, or hip colleagues can assume a dialect, a lingo that we can’t comfortably wear? Do I have an “accent” when I text because I can’t seem to let go of vowels or my knowledge of txt-speak (lingo to some) is so limited?
The notion of habitus is, I think, quite important in this context. How we express ourselves in language has a bearing on our sense of identity, and it would be naive to imagine (imho, ymmv) that the communication channels in the SMS/texting/chatting/tweeting world will have no effect on people’s sense of identity and affinity with particular groups, not to mention an impact on vernacular (the living language of the tribes).

Of course, in formal, academic settings, it is possible to keep the txting Scottish barbarians in check by invoking the normative power of standard English and the curriculum. Not that that has ever worked for long. I like Carrington’s suggestion that we pay attention to the presence of multiple genres and learn how to move between them in response to the different contexts we find ourselves in. And of course, we need to teach these skills to our students, too. This means that we have to also acknowledge that academic literacy (and the writing practices it has spawned) is but one possible genre, and not necessarily the only one that has value within and beyond our classrooms.

jff

10 Melanie Wong { 10.22.09 at 7:02 pm }

Hi again,

Jeff, you wrote so many great points I had to respond again. Thank you for your discussion on Twitter! I have been on Twitter for some time but I am more into following celebrities (yes, I am one of those!) then actually “tweeting.” I posted my first four tweets recently when my friend decided she wanted to try out Twitter because she applied for a job with their company. The 140 character limit made my language take a very interesting turn. I am definitely going to look around a big lecture hall next time and check out if people have tweet deck open.

Like you I enjoy Carrington’s suggestion that we pay attention to multiple genres and learn how to move between them depending on the context. I think as an educator, this is an important skill to have.

M.

11 Janet Pletz { 10.23.09 at 11:36 am }

I have really enjoyed the postings this week. Like Peter, I haven’t incorporated ‘txting’ into my everyday communicative practices. Melanie and Jeff, ‘Twitter and tweets’ still bring to mind a playful-play-on-words…I wonder openly what comes next in instant messaging mediums? What is, as yet, unimagined and unconquered?

Reading Baron’s ‘Viewpoint’ and Carrington’s article served me well in assuaging an event that transpired in my grade two classroom, five months ago. We were preparing for our celebration of learning—a mutimodal, performative, public display of interdisciplinary captions of learning. On this day, my students were composing a first draft at the computers, a reflective text to accompany one of their visual art pieces. This was the first time I had attempted this, as usually, first drafts are done in pencil, in our writing journals, in the classroom. It takes young children a long time to create/think in mind, and then mediate their ideas through keyboarding. However, we were ready for this developmental step. In my movements around the lab I stopped in front of Cam’s monitor…to see his work in a texting genre (his own)! Yikes! In explanation he told me, “At home this is how I write on the computer. My mom taught me. It’s fast and it’s cool.” He had composed simple sentences, void of conventions altogether. Cam reverted to what appeared as inventive spellings of known vocabulary, laden with consonants and void of any vowels at all. Cam had never done this before within ‘conventional’ means of pencil, paper, and context in front of him. At home, the computer represented a means of relating through a different communicative genre.

At the time I was indeed thinking I was caught in a ‘literacy crisis’. Was this experience with Cam the tip of the iceberg? I admit that a wave of panic did ride over me. This week’s reading affirms that yes, our youngest students are growing up with many different genres of language, each with their own audience, setting, culture, and purpose. Through this week’s readings, I now contend to shifting in my own pedagogy. Moving within pre-existing print-centric forms of text are still socially and economically valued, however, not to be undermined, “a range of new technologies and new economic and political contexts are ushering in new texts, social practices, and accompanying literacies.” This is such a significant point. Negotiating and teaching within these potentially, multiple contexts and purposes of language in multiple environments might be as challenging for teachers as it must be for students. I see the need to attend, as our youngest students, such as 7-year-old Cam, who is learning at home (regressively), a different code for language use than he is at school. I agree with Baron here, we do need to make certain that our students understand normative writing conventions and purposes, beside other genres of informal writing. Carrington’s discussion on teaching students to recognize the differences and participate appropriately between and within genres might hold key merit in avoiding a literacy crisis.

12 Genevieve Brisson { 10.23.09 at 12:17 pm }

Bonjour Janet!

I sometimes fool myself in thinking that, at the elementary school, we do not face the same “problems” with IM and CMC that high school teachers face everyday but clearly I am wrong. I somehow knew I was wrong, but the example you shared with us if another proof of how wrong I am.

Cam’s writing style on the computer was something he learned with his mother, something that was part of his available design, and I would also say, a constitutive element of his identity (or one of his identities). The articles we read this week all address in some ways the concept of identity/identities. Here’s a collage of some sentences coming from the four of them and addressing this concept.

Teens often use spoken language to express small-group identity. It is hardly surprising to find many of them experimenting with a new linguistic medium (such as IM) to complement the identity construction they achieve through speech, clothing, or hairstyle. (Baron, p.30)

She (the Scottish girl) was clearly demonstrating literate skills, utilizing new technologies to carry out social functions, carve out an identity within particular semiotic domains, and in the process, incidentally ran foul of the deeply embedded norms of classroom literacy practice. (Carrington, 30)

An important goal of the article is to document how youth and young adults use YouTube’s video sharing and commenting features to project identities that affiliate with particular social groups.
(Lange, p. 361)

New subject identities and positions, new technologies of expression and representation, new patterns and lines of development, new community formations and industrial organizations, new life pathway and social trajectories are both out there somewhere and in our classrooms and homes (Luke & Luke, p. 114-115)

New technologies are linked to identities in so many ways. We cannot push aside these experiences when working with children and teenager.

13 Erin Garcia { 10.23.09 at 9:26 pm }

WARNING: Ridiculously long post! jaja

First of all, this “crisis” of language is nothing new, language has been in constant conflict between its written form (which as a result of its “solid” (or rather pre-screen era anyway) form changes slowly) and its spoken form (which is more fluid and therefore changes at a faster pace). So now that we are moving away from the traditional print form of text into the relatively fluid screen form of text or txt if you will, the written form has become more fluid and more susceptible to change, and as per usual that change is met with confusion and resistance by the status quo.

I clearly remember a very similar debate not too long ago about students in Chicago who felt their unique dialect (I guess what we’d think of as “hip hop”) should be acceptable in the English classroom and challenged the idea of Standard English. Is this the same debate?

I think the idea of txting resulting in lower levels of language abilities is unfounded. I remember passing many “substandard English” notes in class all through school, in fact I we tried to make some of them using our own form of pictographs, and if anything this experimental playing with language helped my development. That said, when I lived in Mexico and was a novice Spanish speaker, I found IMing with my local friends very difficult, because of their use of txting language (ex. instead of “Que onda? Dime algo” they’d write “Ke onda? Dime x”) But as my grasp of the language grew, my ability to comprehend txting grew with it. So from personal experience, I’d argue that one must have a firm grasp of the standard language in order to txt.

As far as to teach txting or not to teach txting in the classroom, I know I was explicitly taught it back in 1995, with a list of acronyms and smileys to learns for the IP test. I have used the txt message in my French core classroom, getting kids to have basic IM conversations in French, one more way to have authentic (to them anyway) conversation.

My use of txting follows that of Baron’s research, which “suggests that IM conversations serve largely pragmatic information sharing and social-communications.” I use txting every day, however, I have an old cellphone with a limited T9Word function, so my txts end up sounding quite affected, as Jeff mentioned about an accent”. I have to admit, I mostly use it, when I need to give information to someone, and I don’t really feel like taking the 5 minutes it would take to call and talk to them. I use Facebook for the same shallow level of social contact, I actually really hate using Facebook, for this reason, but as we all know now, if you aren’t on Facebook, you won’t be invited to the party this Friday.

As to the generational gap of txting, my 78yr old Dad recently got his first cell phone as absolutely loves txting. He’s still learning the etiquette rules of txting, he feels he has to answer it as quickly as a live phone call, rather than taking advantage of the fact that people usually don’t expect an immediate response. And the messages he writes usually have to be split into two or three, due to lack of txting lingo. But still I think it’s pretty cool.

If U red 2 here, thnx! btw I luvd ur posts.

14 Richard Harris { 10.24.09 at 11:32 am }

Wow! There are some entertaining posts up this week. Peter, that was a fantastically appropriate reference to Newspeak. Can we then equate cell phone designers and instant message software providers to Big Brother? Mmmm. I also enjoyed Jeff’s “ txting Scottish barbarians” imagery. Perhaps traditional linguists will construct a kind of institutional Hadrian’s Fire Wall to limit the advances of the barbarian digital literacies.

Although I found Carrington’s lexical analysis of the articles interesting and well thought out, we should not lose sight of the fact that her data is based on two articles. Yes, the theme of the degradation of traditional literacy by txting raises its head fairly regularly in the media, but I wonder whether this is a legitimate fear for the general population.

I personally don’t find many examples of “txtspeak” in formal writing assignments collected from my students. Although, I do allow it in their journal entries. Becoming aware of the merits and shortcomings is important to understanding any register, new or old. Melanie’s use of register in her discussion with her student is a great example of how one can deal with txting in the classroom.

I do agree with Carrington’s perspective on txting as a new literacy that should not be ignored. She also points out that “the ultimate purpose of literacy lies outside the classroom, that its raison d’etre should be to enhance individual and group opportunities for imagining and enacting different configurations of social and economic access” (171). This is a broader understanding of literacy that we are coming to accept, and txting is just one weapon amongst the arsenal of literacies available to today’s student.

Interestingly, Carrington doesn’t address the simple fact that to engage in txting one must have a rudimentary understanding of traditional prose. One thing that came to mind while reading her article was that part of the appealing aspect of txting is the process of decoding it. In order to make sense of a text message one must translate as they read. Txting works because it is quickly transmitted to the intended audience. But I think it is valid because it reflects proper prose, not because it rejects proper prose. Students txt because it is efficient, not because they believe it to be a better form of communication.

Thanks.

15 Eva Ziltener { 10.24.09 at 1:42 pm }

Hello Everyone!

First off, I thought I should confess that I had a very busy morning… “sending stuff”. Sorting through and replying to emails takes up quite a bit of time… especially when it’s been piling up all week! But now I can shift my attention to our blog and the insightful comments it contains.

On the topic of “txtn’”: I try 2 abbrv. messgs. But I don’t no if thr understood. Plus I’m not vry good at readn’ othr ppls “codes” either. LOL (I think that’s the only “standard” bit of text-speak I know…) I think txters have their own “standardized language” with it’s own rules… rules with which many are not familiar, and thus label as “wrong” or “threatening” to the language as they know it. I think that being familiar with only one kind of “speak” is limiting. I agree with Carrington when she argues on p. 167, that “competent language users shift between various types and forms of textual and other language use on a daily, even hourly basis in the course of our daily activities”.

Texting may not always be appropriate, but it can sure be a handy tool. We need to become more comfortable with the idea the language is flexible and always in motion. New words are constantly being added to most languages, and the new meanings are being developed as we evolve socially, economically, globally and technologically. We need to acknowledge this and let it happen. As Carrington says on page 167, “there is also no room for an engagement with, or co-option of, new forms of text as they evolve around new technologies and social practices.” We need to create room to play with these new forms of text. Shunning them is not going to make them go away. Instead we should make a place for them, and include them as a way of communication and expression. It might not be suitable for writing essays, texting has its place in our social interactions. (This is where Melanie’s point about register comes into play). (=

Thanks Geoff for bringing our attention to Bourdieu’s ideas on literary habitus. I have friends who LOVE texting… but alas, I often need to call them to translate what they have written. I was never into IMing and so never developed the accompanying vocabulary. When I try to text, I often forget to leave out the vowels, or I get too attached to “real” spelling… for example: I cannot stand the (miss)spelling “nite”. So I add the extra characters every time, which means I’m not actually saving time, or money by t(e)xting. Like Genevieve, I keep forgetting to leave out that “e”. Quel dommage!

Erin: que chistoso! I was actually wondering about how I would go about txting in French or German… I speak both languages fluently… but I don’t have the slightest idea of how text-speak would sound/look like in either language because it’s a type of communication I don’t engage in (in those languages especially). I’m already a novice texter in English… I’m sure my German txts especially would be several pages long… like your dad’s. My parents, too, have recently started texting, but they (my mom especially) have certainly grasped the point about brevity. Her messages are sometimes so short and cryptic that they hardly say anything at all. LOL (=

Richard: I think you are right to remind us that Carrington’s discourse analysis is based only one story (and two texts). However, I got the sense that she, too, was aware that this was an isolated case and did not indicate an impending doom for Standard English. Rather, the situation (and her analysis of it) highlighted an on-going battle for educators and the system they work in… how much change and “new-fangled” technologies do we allow in the traditional classroom? Do we encourage it? Fight off the “txting Scottish barbarians” with clubs? Or do we engage in a dialogue about where such new forms of “txt” or speech might find a place to co-exist along with traditional literacies?
I agree both with your point (“to engage in txting one must have a rudimentary understanding of traditional prose”) and with Erin’s (“one must have a firm grasp of the standard language in order to txt”). All is not lost! Perhaps we should view txting as a form of resistance, (and a quick and efficient way to communicate) rather than as a threat to the “standard” English language.

I think I, too, have written a rather long post, so I will stop for now.

Tschuess,

Eva

16 Emma Kivisild { 10.24.09 at 2:04 pm }

i am reluctant to post too much, as then what will i say in my presentation? well, there is lots to say, anyway, actually. and you all raise so many ideas.

i am loving all the talk of register. that is the thing isn’t it? time was, people talked how they talked, and then learned how to write, a separate thing, with varying degrees of success on both fronts. speech vatied/s a lot, too, with class, education. and audience.

here are some things i am thinking about this minute, e.g. when did we get vowels anyway? what languages work without them? (hebrew, i think) gertrude stein has some choice things to say about punctutaion, especially commas. try writing without commas to see the saluatary effect this can have on clarty in your writing. honestly.

language is a living thing, as is pointed out to me whenever i correct the new thing i see in speech everywhere: the use of ‘and i’ when it should be ‘and ne.’ barack obama speaks up for this. now i hear ‘xx and i’s’ instead of xx’s and my.’ argh. just language doing its thing but without rules where are we? in language, it seems..

i do not use capitals in personal writing. i do if i am writing a ‘proper’ letter.

for me, txting is very affected by clumsy fingers and bad eyes. i lvbe the story of your 78 year old dad. and the speed of reply thing. i am reminded of those people who used to leave progressively more panicked phone messages if you didn’t call back right away,

talk soon;

17 Jeff Miller { 10.25.09 at 12:19 pm }

Hi everyone,

I wanted to quickly add a response to Luke and Luke’s (2001) article “Adolescence lost/childhood regained: On early intervention and the emergence of the techno-subject.” I was quite taken by their metaphor of early-intervention literacy as a form of print inoculation, a serum to delay or prevent addiction or dependency on media other than those sanctioned by schools and the state. Their polemic is interesting reading particularly when one thinks about the impact of the whole digital native/immigrant arguments of the last couple of years (and the push back against that notion).

One of the many provocative statements that caught my attention in this article was the following:

“The history of literacy is fraught with a tendency to turn history into
nature, to assume the species ‘beingness’ of literacy – when in fact its formation,its practices, and its social distribution are the artefacts of the very material and discourse conditions we described above” (p. 117).

Luke and Luke provide a compelling argument for this tendency going back to the time of Luther and their analysis of the function of power in relation to education, cultural institutions, and conceptions of youth provide a useful backdrop against which to consider contemporary arguments about literacy.

In reading this article, I was reminded of another strong statement made by Carmen Luke (2003) in an analysis of the role that educational institutions play in the reproduction of traditional literacy.

“Dominant educational institutions – from Socratic dialogical circles, to medieval monasteries and universities, to the industrial-era school – do not have outstanding track records engaging with new communications technologies. This is in part because curriculum and teaching tend to be defined in terms of mastery of and engagement with dominant modes of information, whether of spoken language and gesture, inscription and print, or visual image. Simply, the domination of pedagogy by mode of information may prove harder to displace than any particular political or sociocultural ideology. (p. 397)”

This historical perspective is worth keeping in mind as we deal with our own moral panic or the state of literacy in our schools.

Jeff

Luke, C. (2003). Pedagogy, Connectivity, Multimodality, and Interdisciplinarity. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 397-403.

18 Chelsey Hauge { 10.25.09 at 9:58 pm }

Erin: I found this debate about txting/standard English to echo earlier conversations about hip hop, eubonics, etc… There also seem to be issues of power at play here, the need to claim as standard, as correct a certain “type” of speak. Also, I relate to your comments on txting in Spanish, something I do everyday to friends/family in Mexico, using words like– k onda way(a) (que honda guey(a))//kiero cmer x // dnde tu tas?// and, with those who inhabit both English and Spanish, writing things like dnde 2 tas?// k onda w/ ystrdy’s jnta?// Interesting conflation of multiple languages, situated within a specific site of un/belonging. Multilingual texting might be interesting to look at in terms of diasporas and communities that are distributed across the world, and whose languages are porous. What are the linguistic codes? How do these (multi)linguistic codes allow communities to carve out space to negotiate identity and difference? In relation to Melanie’s post on Lange’s ideas about the publicy private and privately public, how do fluid languages used in digital spaces/on txting carve out privacy in public spaces? In thinking about the fluidity of online/offline spaces, does a kid txting poh signify the carving of private space within the public the parent is part of?

Peter: You write that you’re not sure higher brain centers are involved in txting, and that this might be related to why youth look dazed when you ask them to write like Carrington or Orwell. I think its like trying to compare apples and oranges. Certainly, the negotiation of language and space and private/public requires a high level of engagement with ideas and with cultural politics.

I found the discussion of Bourdieu’s work, and Freire’s work especially interesting. In light of my earlier discussion about carving out space and negotiating language, the idea that literacy instruction is politicized “in the inculcation of a structured misrecognition of the naturalness of the status quo and the daily social and economic advantage of some individuals and groups at the expense of others” (Carrington) seems productive for me, especially in light of the txting conversation. In what ways does txting allow for individuals and communities who do not identify with the “status quo” and dominant groups to communicate in ways that are resistant, or that release new languages? Can txting in networked publics support the formation of a discursive counter public? Within such a counterpublic, is there possibility- and how is that possibility facilitated- of a meta language to think about the inherent politics of un/belonging within txting communities? Related to Friere’s work, can the materialization of txting counterpublics provide the tools and meta language necessary to “read the world and even more radically, transform it?” Within the formation of a counterpublic with distinct txting patterns of communicating, can dominant tools of literacy—writing standard English—be used in order to access power, and transform it?

19 Jeff Miller { 10.26.09 at 11:44 am }

This may not be entirely on-topic, but as usual, The Onion puts things into perspective:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_eccentric_reads_entire_book

J : )

20 Heidi { 10.26.09 at 2:23 pm }

Hi all,
I’ve enjoyed the discussion this week. Jeff, that youtube mockumentary on Flutter you posted is hilarious!
~hmm (just my initials, no decoding required)

You must log in to post a comment.