What is your opinion about the effects of 'text speak' and other such things on the english language?

I think it’s miraculous and wonderful to behold.

Neither you, nor anyone else can stop it. Relax, enjoy the ride, and stop being a pedant.

I hate it. I hope very much it will be bypassed by a new form of technology.

Language always changes over time in response to technology and cultural shifts. It always has. I don’t think text speak makes English any less legible for those who know it, so I say let it happen.

I think there is a big difference between the evolution of language and the dumbing down of language. I think txtspk falls firmly into the second category. Originally, it started because texts were so expensive and you had to put as much information as possible into one text. However, nowadays, so many people have unlimited texts with their phones that I think it no longer has a place.

It causes so much hell for us moderators because people don’t understand why we get rid of incomprehensible txtspk.

Having respect for a language is not being a pedant. It’s having respect for a language. I agree with @lapilofu that languages change over time, but I also agree with @KatawaGrey that txtspk is not an evolution; it’s a dumbing down that is unnecessary.

I’m a big proponent of literacy, and I believe that the increased use of txtspk only acts to decrease the amount of reading one does, not to mention decreasing the amount of reading in comprehensible language one does.

I’m not thrilled with it. It looks lazy and cheap. A lot of young people are not learning how to read and write properly and they don’t care. I’m glad that Fluther encourages us not to use too much text speak, although I can see how an OMG or an IMO every now and then can kind of be useful or funny. But in general, I think the schools should insist that the students learn and use proper English when speaking and writing and they should do much more speaking and writing in school. There’s not much you can do to stop kids from using text speak on their phones and computers, but smart parents will make sure that their kids are learning how to communicate properly. I’m all for people learning other languages, even if it is text speak, but it doesn’t serve anyone if those same people don’t actually learn proper English. Text speak kind of reminds me of what some people call Ebonics. It can draw a certain, small group of people together, but it makes others feel like outsiders and it really is like choosing to use a different language, on purpose. That makes for less communication and less understanding.

Half of my relatives are teachers and they are trying to teach kids how to read and write English so they can get into college. Constantly using text speak doesn’t help.

@KatawaGrey, @Seelix: I’m interested in the distinction between evolution of language and dumbing down of language. What makes that difference?

Languages evolve when they come into contact with other languages and words/structures/grammar/etc. are borrowed, or when new words are developed for concepts/objects that didn’t exist before. I see txtspk as dumbing down because people have started replacing words with numerals and purposely spelling things incorrectly in order to make typing easier.

“Dumbing down” is a judgement that the individual makes.

Language is.

Stop being pedants.

@the100thmonkey – I’ll reiterate: Having respect for a language isn’t pedantic. Telling someone outright that they are wrong without considering their viewpoint is.

@Seelix Hm. Language evolves in other ways too—not just through contact with other languages. Language also simply evolves through usage. English writers don’t spell words the same way we did a few hundred years ago, so in that way a great many words have been “replaced” and not solely through contact with other languages; we have many of the same words—we just spell them differently.

Do you consider it a dumbing down of the language when typesetters starting using the letter ‘y’ instead of the thorn? Or when they began to abbreviate the latin “et” with the simpler ”&”?

so would you say that the English we speak now is an evolution of the English that the poems and plays etc. written in the Tudor/Elizabethan times is an evolution or a dumbing down?

@Seelix – I have considered your viewpoint. It’s based on a fundamental misconception (I’m being charitable) of language, its uses, genre, change over time, the rise of mass literacy (you have to know how to spell a word in order to mis-spell it for your purposes), technology and its role in language, and the simple fact that people neither speak nor write the way one likes all the time.

To assert that any use of language that you dislike is “dumbing down” is to miss the point in the most pedantic way.

This is not intended as a flame; I don’t want to insult you, but there are occasions when one is just wrong. This is one of them.

@lapilofu – I do see your point about evolution. I can’t say anything about the thorn, because my field is romance languages and I must admit that I had to look up the term. As for the ampersand, it’s a development and ligature of the Latin “et” – Latin had a billion abbreviations that were used in writing all the time. I can’t see it as dumbing down, per se, but I can tell you that Italian is pretty much a dumbed down vernacular Latin. It happens – not everyone will be cool with it (I’m not), but it happens. I do understand that changes in language are bound to happen for whatever reason, but that doesn’t mean I have to be okay with all of them.

@the100thmonkey – We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that I’m wrong – I accept that I may not be 100% right, as you and @lapilofu have made some valid points, but I don’t think I’m “just wrong”. I’ll just go read my linguistics books in the corner, and wait to see what Jeruba has to say about txtspk.

@Seelix: why, exactly, should one have respect for language? Can we explode the verb ‘respect’? What does that mean, exactly? Why is it important (in light of the definition of ‘respect’)? What, therefore, is implied when one doesn’t ‘respect’ a language.

Interesting that no one in this discussion is using text speak, despite some claims made on its behalf.

@SavoirFaire I think that is because Fluther specifically urges its users not to use textspeak as one of their writing standards. And a great writing standard that is. I think the reason they ask us not to use it, is because it makes communication much more difficult.

I only use it when I am texting or on a messenger/facebook chat or something. When i want to type something quickly. I think this is also the case with a lot of people.

@SavoirFaire And furthermore (aside from the fact that Fluther explicitly requests that we not use text speak) if I want to argue in favor of one language or another, I’m better off doing it in a language that the other person will find persuasive. No sense in making an argument unless someone who is on the other side will read it.

@Kardamom and @lapilofu Exactly my point. Text speak is not useful for most forms of communication, even if it’s fine for short messages of a thoroughly utilitarian nature.

@SavoirFaire – it’s a choice we make – we choose the appropriate genre for the message and the audience. I believe that most complaints about the ‘state of the language’ arise from people finding the language chosen for a context – SMS messages, for example – not to be to their tastes.

Take the following sentences as an example:

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was foreseen, perhaps foreknown, by the British military in 1942. The British, however, chose not to warn the American government as American involvement in the war was seen by the British as necessary for a British victory in Europe. LOL.

We can immediately see what is wrong with this. The only difference is that no history major in their right mind would add “LOL” to their thesis statement as it’s inappropriate for context. Context is KING.

@Kardamom – it doesn’t make communication more difficult. The idea that txtspk clouds communication usually emanates from those that are unfamiliar with it.

Language changes; get used to it. And do try to keep up!

I’d like to clarify: I have no problem with txtspk when used in text messages. I just think it shouldn’t replace English (or whatever language is spoken wherever one is).

@the100thmonkey I have no problem with choosing “the appropriate genre for the message and the audience.” In fact, I explicitly said that text speak is fine for certain kinds of messages.

But in regard to your response to @Kardamom, I have a question: cn u rly tl me tt dis dsnt cld comm? Srly is mr tn 1 interp of dis, no?

@the100thmonkey I don’t send text messages, so I have no need to learn textspeak. I only interact in places where textspeak is not considered acceptable. Like here on Fluther, it is not considered acceptable according to the terms of the writing standards. I’m not allowed to use textspeak in e-mails at work and I don’t send textspeak e-mails to my friends or relatives. None of my adult friends or relatives sends textspeak e-mails to me either. Although, I’m sure some of them do use it when sending text messages on their phones. Like I said, a lot of my family are teachers and they don’t encourage textspeak, as they are trying to prepare their students for college.

@SavoirFaire Sorry, I have no idea what your message is saying. The only terms I am familiar with are OMG, IMO and u and r.

@Kardamom That’s okay, the question is for @the100thmonkey in regard to his response to you.

@SavoirFaire I’m glad, because I really didn’t know what it said. All I know is that it wasn’t in English. : – )

@Kardamom – and?

I’m very much inclined to refer to the original question:

“What is your opinion about the effects of ‘text speak’ and other such things on the english language?”

Then, I will refer to my original response and all those following it:

“I think it’s miraculous and wonderful to behold.

Neither you, nor anyone else can stop it. Relax, enjoy the ride, and stop being a pedant.”

@SavoirFaire – I would ask you for your data that suggests to you that your message is difficult to process (it isn’t particularly so, by the way, despite the bad faith of @Kardamom). Moreover, you attempt to imitate something you are not familiar with, which is abundantly clear.

This is the point – you are coming from a position where you dislike something and are unfamiliar with it because you choose not to engage in it.

Basically: where is the clear, unambiguous, authentic data that demonstrates that txtspk is a danger to the English language? Where is the data that shows that your beliefs about txtspk are not just your aesthetic decisions and beliefs, which are patently personal and beyond generalisation?

Why do you resort to cheap inventions to demonstrate that you just don’t like the way some people talk and write?

I shall return to my original thesis: the question, and some of the responses, are derived from an urge to pedantry that would make the scholastic philosophers proud.

This is not a flame. This is not intended to insult. I simply want you to explore your beliefs rather than dogmatically reassert them without engaging with what I wrote.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=609

- Text messages aren’t full of abbreviations – typically less than ten percent of the words use them.
– These abbreviations aren’t a new language – they’ve been around for decades.
– They aren’t just used by kids – adults of all ages and institutions are the leading texters these days.
– Pupils don’t routinely put them into their school-work or examinations.
– It isn’t a cause of bad spelling: you have to know how to spell before you can text.
– Texting actually improves your literacy, as it gives you more practice in reading and writing.

Hey great, thanks to every one for having a shot at this one. My original question does not necessarily reflect my own view, I just find it interesting as there are a lot of people who cant stand it. Cheers guys.

@the100thmonkey When you are tempted to state “this is not a flame,” perhaps it is worth reconsidering what you’ve written and how much of it is presumption. I am not insulted, and I do not feel I have been attacked. Nevertheless, I do find it interesting how much you have assumed in your response to me.

For the purposes of clarification:

I am familiar with text speak. I grew up with AOL Instant Messenger as my primary means of communicating with friends, and my question used only abbreviations that my younger sister uses in her own text messages.

Furthermore, I have no problem with text speak. I don’t send text messages on my phone, but that’s because I only have a cell phone for emergency purposes. I have received text messages, and—as I have already stated twice now—I have no objection to their usage.

I will be happy to continue this conversation when you choose to engage me based on what I actually said, and not an imagined conversation that you’ve had without me. For while I may not be a Scholastic philosopher, I am an academic philosopher who understands the importance of both the principle of charity and not getting caught up in rhetoric or red herrings.

It’s nothing to worry about. Newspeak anyone?

@SavoirFaire – if you were familiar with txtspk, as you claim, you would understand that the text you provide as an ‘example’ (and suggest, backhandedly, that it does cloud communication) is just erroneous and without basis in real data.

You have no data – or at least have provided none to support the ‘txtspk’ you use; therefore your example is simply contrived. It ignores the knowledge of both schema and script that is necessary for abbreviated communication. There’s some irony in that you mention red herrings and the observe that no-one is using txtspk in this thread, given that you accept that genre is dominated by context.

I suspect that we actually agree; my objection is with your construct – which is as useless as any kernel sentence devised by Chomskyite linguists. By invoking it, you violate the very principle of charity you quote at me.

Now, rhetoric aside – what do you think of txtspk?

@the100thmonkey What sort of data are you looking for? I’ve never claimed that I have done or read a scientific study on text speak, nor have I made claims requiring such data. In fact, it seems a bit of a red herring to harp on data—especially if you aren’t going to provide any yourself.

As for my thoughts about text speak, I’ll repeat myself for what is now the fourth time: I think text speak is fine in certain contexts. Even the question I posed in text speak—using only formations and syntax I’ve seen used (though I called my sister to ask what she’d do with one word)—would be appropriate in certain instances.

But I also think that any loss of specificity has a potential for clouding communication insofar as less determinacy regarding what the words stand for may inhibit the clear transmission of one’s intended message. Since text speak is not a stable language, and in fact a rather unstable language despite a growing set of conventions, there is a great deal of variety among users of it. This is a problem facing many languages and uses thereof, however, and is in my opinion not a sufficient reason for the wholesale rejection of text speak as a medium for communication.

(By the way, I am interested in how you think asking a question could violate the principle of charity. Please explain.)

@SavoirFaire It’s not that it’s not useful. It’s just that I wouldn’t answer this question in French or Swahili either.

@lapilofu Sure, but why not English text speak? Because it’s not appropriate for this kind of conversation. That was my point, as I already said. I have no problem with the claim that text speak is useful in some contexts.

[mod says] Just a reminder, folks. Please remember to disagree without being disagreeable.