Linguist Explains That Txting Isn't Ruining Spelling Or The English Language
from the try-again dept
For years, we've been responding to highly questionable reports or unsubstantiated claims that "txt spk" was somehow destroying the English language and seeping into all sorts of written communications from students who just didn't know any better. Much of that myth was apparently built off of a paper that was posted to the internet, that many people then insisted must have been true -- but which later turned out to be a hoax. Yet, the myth prevailed despite plenty of studies that showed children of this generation are better writers because they spend much more time with the English language than earlier generations. And, despite widespread opinion, they usually know which type of writing is proper for which context. In fact, studies showed that there were no ill effects of students learning "txt spk." Yet, because the myth is so strong, even when studies come out disproving the myth, the press often misrepresent the results.One of England's top linguists has seen enough, however, and has gone through all the research, along with some of his own to come out with a book dispelling the myth that texting hurts a child's language skills. As he notes in a recent interview:
"Almost every basic principle that people hold about texting turns out to be misconceived. Misspelling isn't universal: analysis shows that only 10% of words used in texts are misspelt. Nor are most texts sent by kids: 80% are sent by businesses and adults. Likewise, there is no evidence that texting teaches people to spell badly: rather, research shows that those kids who text frequently are more likely to be the most literate and the best spellers, because you have to know how to manipulate language."Hopefully, with more studies and academics pointing this out, we can start to put this myth to bed.
"If you can't spell a word, then you don't really know whether it's cool to misspell it. Kids have a very precise idea of context - none of those I have spoken to would dream of using text abbreviations in their exams - they know they would be marked down for it."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wouldn't be so sure...
Some of the English papers I saw were very poorly put together. One person even used leet in his persuasive essay (logic ftw!).
It isn't just spelling that took a hit, it was grammar as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't be so sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't be so sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are these the same linguists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are these the same linguists?
NO dialect of any language is illegitimate. Ebonics (or a to use a less loaded term...AAE. African American English) to use just one example is NOT illiterate or deficient or whatever derogatory term you want to call it. It is English, just as much as Standard English is. It just happens to obey slightly different rules (emphasis on slightly) when it comes to phonology, morphology, and syntax. It is still easily recognizable as English.
And double negotiations ain't no problem if you get my meaning. What's next...complaining that certain individuals on national television speak using double modal verbs?
Oh, and just so you know: lumping Ebonics together with pidgin languages just makes it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. They're as different as night is to day really. Just an exercise...try to find a native speaker of any pidgin language. Or rather: don't bother since you won't find any. You will a great deal of native speakers of AAE though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are these the same linguists?
What about Tok Pisin (PNG)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are these the same linguists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shorthand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shorthand?
Sorry Rose, but I don't think many professors would accept an essay written in shorthand.
Neither would many bosses I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shorthand?
"Kids have a very precise idea of context - none of those I have spoken to would dream of using text abbreviations in their exams - they know they would be marked down for it."
So we're talking about people using text speak in every day life, like text messages and e-mails. Essays need not apply.
Personally, my biggest problem is people in the business world, ages thirty-five plus, who could probably write a wonderful essay but can't type a business e-mail worth a damn. For whatever reason (that pesky Shift key maybe), they cannot write an e-mail the way that they would write a letter. You know, with punctuation, capitalization, and correct spelling. However, it doesn't make their message to me any less understandable - just more annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shorthand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup, let's trust an unsubstantiated claim from a lawyer, rather than a well respected linguist who looked at the research.
MLS, you wonder why we question your credibility, and then you make statements like this. Funny that you would make such a statement just days after claiming that we could not make statements concerning patents without carefully interviewing all parties involved.
Yet here, when evidence is presented, you immediately insist it must not be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps it may give you pause to reconsider your comment if I note that my wife has been an English teacher (Monterey, SF Bay Area, San Diego, La Jolla, Orlando) since before you were even a zygote, and that throughout her teaching career she has shared with me her students' work product. With precious few exceptions, their work product has been disheartening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only because you have made it a daily practice to do the same to us.
consider for a moment the possibility that neither you nor your company are being slandered or mocked.
I didn't think you were mocking or slandering us. I just found it amusing that you take us to task for not presenting backed up evidence all the time -- and yet when you do the same, you expect us to believe you over an actual expert in the field.
Perhaps it may give you pause to reconsider your comment if I note that my wife has been an English teacher (Monterey, SF Bay Area, San Diego, La Jolla, Orlando) since before you were even a zygote, and that throughout her teaching career she has shared with me her students' work product. With precious few exceptions, their work product has been disheartening.
Well, there's an easy explanation for why that would be the case, while most students studied are not having that problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no, it's not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, it's not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no, it's not...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no, it's not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, it's not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, it's not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lrn 2 txt, n00b.
[Sorry, I couldn't resist. Someone had to do it.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short-hand
Also their are people like my mom that will text diner @ 5 to me or anything else in short hand, it just because it's quicker for her.
Also I believe the schools in New Zeland have made it legal for kids in school to use short hand on tests, I remember reading the article from slashdot awhile back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hope that the shocking number of spelling and grammar mistakes in this thread is some kind of joke. If not, practically every one of you should run - don't walk - to the nearest bookstore and get a dictionary and a copy of Strunk & White.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The rain in spain falls mainly on the plane . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I blame the teachers
VOTE McCain 2008 – because real change is real scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irregardless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: irregardless
irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: irregardless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new phones
Essentially, as we see he rise of the portable qwerty, maybe we will see a decline in txt spk.
I am writing this from a QWERTY phone if that makes a difference. u
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: new phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: new phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: new phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misspelt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Language is a Virus
If a person is struggling with these skills in "txt msgs", the deficiency will show up in other languages and/or communication skills. How about folks that learn "old school" shorthand? Another language? Typing? Or the Morse code?
As language mutates, we eventually improve communication. This "barrel full of monkeys" chaotic churn always happens with yakking humans.
It's fun too. Anyone remember "Sniglets"? ;p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with poster #23
What I can't stand is the boss who is too lazy/ stupid/ dumb (insert your own word) to check the option in Outlook to "spell check before sending". Does the boss know how stupid she sounds when her e-mail is dotted with mis-spellings... especially when everyone in the company uses Outlook which comes with a spell-checker!!!
(I say "she" because my female boss at a previous job worked this way: she never spell-checked her e-mails.)
So, is it really "txt spk" that's bringing down people's ability to use correct spelling and grammar or is it just plain laziness?
I have the feeling that the txt spk kids of today will have a better command of the English language than anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with poster #23
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every home computer I've seen has had a Qwerty keyboard attached to it and yet I see txt spk in messages posted to various forums on a daily basis.
Actually, it is. Do you know the history of "Ebonics"? It's based on the speech patterns developed by black people who were kept as slaves. As such, most were never taught to speak proper English. They were illiterate and their spoken English was deficient. This poorly learned version of English was passed down through the generations. So when a black person defends "Ebonics" or "AAE" as part of their culture, what they're really defending is their right to speak like an illiterate slave.
However, since you seem to think that any mangling of a language can be defended on the grounds that it's a "dialect", allow me to express myself more colorfully;
thas there ebonical stuff ain't never gonna been a no for-reals langwhich
Hey, that's pretty good! Maybe I should patent that, I can call it "Moronics", the language of low-IQ people. Maybe I can even lobby to get to get it taught in schools!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
English Is Already Ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: English Is Already Ruined
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The linguists are right
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20 A = TXTSPK IS RUINING ENGLISH
30 B = WHY DIDN'T BASIC RUIN IT FIRST. REM There is room for more than one language. Its a matter of horses for courses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@36
FO' SHIZZLE MAH NIZZLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its true, it is most certainly distorting the English language
I fear there is nothing that can be done as technology is apart of our social make-up and this form of texting/writing will only get worst. Eventually, the english language, as we know it, will be a thing if the past. I already see the dictionary filling with unintelligibles, it's just a simple matter of time before proper literacy is extinct.... Sadly, due most in part because of technology.
Sigh
-Terrell, Los Angeles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]