In Carrington’s and Baron’s articles, they discuss how the new literacy of text-messaging is perceived by society and its possible effects on language. My first thought on these two articles is that they speak far more to our society’s fear of linguistic change than they do to any actual change. The “rhetoric of ‘crisis’” (2005 p.171) that Carrington discovers in the newspaper article towards texting shows that our society still view literacy in a singular way. It seems as if people believe there is only type of literacy and if students do not master it, our civilization will collapse. In opposition to this belief, this multiliteracies course has taught us that there are many different types of literacy that students need to master, and that there are literacies that students have already mastered which serve their communication needs very well. From this point of view, it is important for teachers to be asking: “What does it mean to be ‘literate’ in contemporary economies and cultural landscapes? What kinds of texts will the students in our classrooms find it necessary to ‘read’ and manipulate and produce in order to effectively participate in civic life?” ( Carrington 2005, p.172) For teachers to condemn these modes of communication as detrimental to students’ wellbeing is to underestimate their capacities to work between and with many literacies.
Consequently, my second thought about these two articles is that becoming fluent in texting language is very important in today’s world. It is becoming more and more uncommon to call people on the phone so we need to be able to text information quickly and efficiently. If we write everything out in full sentences, it would take forever to have a text conversation. Also, on a side note, it is pretty embarrassing (for me, anyway) when someone texts you an acronym that you don’t know. It would be very interesting to know what kind of attitude business people have toward texting since blackberries have become the main mode of communication in business.
Lastly, I’m not sure why people are so afraid of texting language when university students have been writing in short-hand code for their note-taking for years and years. We can still write essays as well. It seems that Baron is right when he writes that, “IM is unlikely to play a significant role in altering writing standards—unless we as parents and educators let it” (2005 p.31). This quote raises the troubling question: are we, as teachers, the gatekeepers of new literacies and of progression and change?
– Dayonne (Blog post #2)
Baron, N.S. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 30-31.
Carrington, V. (2005). Txting: the end of civilization (again)? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 161-175.
3 responses so far ↓
sarram // Jul 14th 2013 at 6:17 pm
I really like the point you make in your first paragraph, Dayonne. Reading these 2 articles and your response reminded me of a section of a great TED talk by John McWhorter called “Txting is killing language. JK!!!” At one point in his talk, he shows evidence from throughout the centuries of people worrying about the degradation of language. The fear you wrote about – “People believe there is only type of literacy and if students do not master it, our civilization will collapse.” – is nothing new.
I think McWhorter also makes an interesting point that is relevant to the conversation on multiliteracies. He argues that texting isn’t even writing. Instead, it is “fingered speech”; it is writing the way you speak. I don’t write in an essay for school in the same way that I would talk when spending time with friends. Texting is a representation of everyday speech.
I completely agree with you that texting has not affected my ability to write a formal essay. I think it was in the class on social media in which Dr. Dobson spoke about addressing the level of language expected of your students. If we draw these lines for students, explaining what language is acceptable when, I don’t think that texting will have a negative impact on the writing of our students.
I wonder where, then, texting can fit into education. I’ve thought about this issue a lot – especially after receiving journals from students on my practicum that contained “text speak,” like LOL. When (if ever) is it acceptable to allow students to use the language of texting in their work?
McWhorter, John. (2013, February). Txting is killing language. JK!!! [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk.html.
– Sarra
lisaubc // Jul 14th 2013 at 11:52 pm
Interesting points by both of you.
Btw I read an interesting article by Lynne Truss (author of Eats Shoots and Leaves) and she raises the point that “literacy is historically the engine of social mobility…” (Truss, 2006) and I think that ‘text speak’ is definitely changing the perception and application of grammar and literacy in schools.
What I find interesting is that text speak is creeping into academic work and it certainly does have an impact on certain aspects of grammar. For example, I found that very few of my grade 12s correctly punctuated paragraphs and often did not capitalize the first word in a sentence. (This was also the case on the Provincial exams, but students were not marked down if it did not detract from meaning). I also think that spelling has naturally deteriorated because of spell check and the reliance on using computers to auto-correct mistakes (often with funny or bizarre changes). I allowed text speak in journal writes, as they were not assessed on grammar or sentence structure as much as on the creative aspect and the purpose was to get students writing. On any formal assignments or projects I did emphasize that they would be marked down, especially if they used 2 or jk in a sentence.
My experience with my children, who are in French Immersion, is that they receive very little formal English grammar instruction and as a result often make basic mistakes, but they are not overly concerned by this and neither are their teachers as long as the general meaning is clear, it is acceptable.
I agree that as teachers we need to be text literate and it is very enlightening to see the creative ways text speak has evolved. I had my grade 12s text each other as if they were under Big Brother’s regime (1984) and see if they could develop a subversive language that seemed to comply with conventions and they were quite successful.
Texting is a new literacy and the generation of teachers who are in their 20s can still distinguish between text speak and proper grammar, students who have cell phones from age 10 and 11 years, do not possess the same ability and since many BC school districts do not require formal grammar to be taught in the classroom, language skills are necessarily changing. I spent a class discussing the difference between to, too, two and 2 🙂
Baron, N.S. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 30-31.
Truss, L. (2006 December 11). Why Arnt childrun being tort how 2 rite? The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.lynnetruss.com
cwolbers // Jul 15th 2013 at 11:46 pm
In my personal opinion, I do not believe that text or texting language is corrupting the English language. As was discussed in today’s presentation, a healthy, thriving language is one that is shifting and evolving. The advent of texting language is simply a simultaneous side effect of our society’s evolution in technology. The content and mode of our language also reveals the greater values of our society. Some may consider the extent to which we use technology to communicate reveals an extensive dependence on modes of conversation, such as texting. However, I feel it reveals the extent to which we have come to rely on communication, as we continue to develop more ways in which to communicate with one another. This seems especially pertinent in a time when social media platforms are so popular. Texting and cell phones then, are just another medium in which we can communicate with those in and outside of our social circles.
I would also agree with the fact that texting language is another language that students need to learn. Students (and all members of society) are required to be competent in various literacies in order to functionally exist within society. However, language is contextual and human beings constantly code-switch between various registers. Therefore, just as we switch between the language we use with our peers to the language we use with our grandparents, one also needs to recognize when they are to code-switch between texting language and formal language. Traditionally, students have been explicitly taught how to utilize formal language, including the exclusion of informal language such as slang. This should extend then, to include the informal language of texting. Teachers need to explicitly reinforce when students should use these different types of language and literacies. In addition, teachers should outline the purpose of these different registers, their value and their contextual significance. I don’t believe that texting language itself has resulted in the supposed “downfall” of the English language. Instead, I believe that the lines are being blurred regarding acceptable language usage. It is our job as English language teachers to explore the language from a more socio-linguistic perspective with our students, and to help them illuminate these distinctions in usage.
You must log in to post a comment.