Yet Another Study Shows Txting Is Good For Kids

from the can-we-put-this-to-rest? dept

We've had a whole series of posts in the past showing various studies explaining that so called "txt spk" isn't harming kids. In fact, the studies have shown that kids these days tend to have a better ability to read and usually recognize when it is, and when it's not appropriate, to use such slang speak in their writing. Yet, every time we post such a study, we get angry comments from people who insist that kids writing in txt spk somehow are destroying the fabric of society. A few folks have sent in the latest report of a study that shows, once again, that txt spk isn't harming reading/writing ability. In fact, it shows the opposite. Those who tend to use txt speak more often have better reading skills than those who don't. I'm sure we'll still get angry responses, but considering how many different studies have shown the same thing, at some point, you're going to need to realize that txt spk isn't killing kids' abilities in reading or writing.

Filed Under: grammar, spelling, txt spk

Grammar Nazis Continue To Blast Apple

from the think-different-in-the-funnest-way-possible dept

A few years ago, when Apple was running its "Think Different" campaign, various grammar nazis complained that it was promoting a grammatically incorrect slogan. Others suggested that it was actually okay, as "different" isn't intended as an adverb in the slogan. However, with Apple's latest iPod launch, the grammar nazis are back, complaining about Apple's use of the (non)word "funnest." I recognize that these things matter to the grammatically infatuated out there, but we're talking about a marketing campaign -- and part of the point of such a marketing campaign is to stand out by being different. The English language has always adapted and changed over time, and that includes changes that came about due to marketing campaigns.

Filed Under: funnest, grammar, grammar nazi
Companies: apple

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."

"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."

Hopefully, with more studies and academics pointing this out, we can start to put this myth to bed.

Filed Under: grammar, spelling, txt spk

Grammar Nazis Rejoice: NYT's In-House Grammar Nazi Opens Up Weekly Critique

from the neat dept

There's a class of folks (you know who you are!) who are well known in any kind of written forum/blog/email list etc. It's the infamous "Grammar Nazi." There are nice Grammar Nazis -- and we appreciate those -- and then there are the obnoxious Grammar Nazis who like to imply that you are the stupidest person to ever touch a keyboard because you mixed up affect and effect. From my perspective, I certainly appreciate the folks who point out the grammatical errors we make (we try to fix them quickly, if it makes sense), though I often find it silly to get bogged down in some of the minutiae of certain grammar rules that for all intents and purposes are almost universally ignored.

Either way, whether you're the nice kind of Grammar Nazi (who usually emails us privately) or the obnoxious kind (who always, always, always posts their comments publicly), you'll probably appreciate that the NY Times' internal Grammar Nazi (okay, technically, the Times' deputy news editor who is also in charge of The Times' style manual, Philip B. Corbett) is now publishing that papers' "weekly critique" publicly for all to see (found via Romenesko). In it, he highlights some of the common grammatical or usage problems that he's spotted regularly in the paper, with the intent of bringing it to the writers' attention for future efforts.

Filed Under: grammar, grammar nazi, philip corbett, weekly critique
Companies: new york times

Txt Spk In Schools Not A Big Deal

from the yet-again dept

While some of the headlines on the latest Pew Study about how "txt speak" is slipping into school writing assignments suggest the horror of a generation of kids who write LOL and use smileys in written communications, the actual results aren't that bad at all. What the study found was that, yes, occasionally some students let slip non-formal English, though that's hardly surprising. However, it's not particularly damaging, and it becomes a teaching point, helping students learn the difference between formal and informal English. This is nothing new. Every year we see the same basic study results, despite plenty of people flipping out. Despite long term worries about txt speak destroying the language, there's no evidence to support that.

In 2003, there was a study that showed that all this writing online was actually making kids more comfortable with writing in general. In 2004, a study showed (like this one) that with a little instruction kids easily understood the difference between texting and writing. In 2005, a study actually found that kids were better writers than in the past "using far more complex sentence structures, a wider vocabulary and a more accurate use of capital letters, punctuation and spelling" even if they sometimes let a txtism into their writing. And, in 2006, a study showed that students showed no ill effects from widespread text and IM messaging. In other words, this story is getting plenty of attention, but the details don't support the headline version that kids are unable to understand what's appropriate in their writing.

Also, one other interesting finding came out of this study: despite the fact that kids sometimes seem attached to their computers, two-thirds actually prefer to write assignments by hand. So, perhaps that'll put to rest that other circulating myth that kids aren't able to write by hand any more.

Filed Under: english, grammar, spelling, students, txt spk