Desecration of Language ?

[Royston]

Please see the Guardian article below....

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1936635,00.html

 

Forgive the rather ardent thread title, but I was completely stunned when I heard this. I'm also clueless as to how this can improve grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary. The sheer range of the English language, makes it a wonderful tool for expression, and articulation, and this really (in my mind) seems a very bad path to take.

 

It just seems like an incredibly lazy way of expressing one's self, hence it's used for writing quick text messages. For this to be extended to exams, of all things, just seems baffling to me. So anyone have any thoughts on this. I realise this is just an isolated example, and probably nothing to get too worried about, but it certainly raises an eyebrow, just due to the fact it was even considered.

 

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this thread, so please move if you don't feel this is the right forum.

[ParanoiA]

Wow, how disgusting. I hope my kids never get to use this lazy method of writing and typing in school.

 

Honestly, I can't get myself to use these short cuts when I'm text messaging either. I spell out everything, or use intuitive abbreviations. "LOL" becomes "funny". Particularly since I very rarely actually laugh out loud. 'L8R' ? I don't get it. That saves you two letters in a 5 letter word. That's freaking lazy. Is this brought on perhaps by lack of typing skills?

 

This text format is cute for license plate phrasing, but in any other context I find it lazy and repulsive.

[Dak]

from the article, it sounds as if you'd still be penalised for it.

 

eg, a good answre, in proper english, = top marks.

 

a good answre, in crap english = ok marks

 

same as the fact that you get docked for spelling mistakes, but, unless your spelling is so abysmal that you can't be understood by the examiner, you'd still pick up marks if what you're saying is worthy.

[Glider]

I'm quite harsh when I find it used in essays and reports. We're supposed to be teaching them to write in a manner that will allow them to do things like get their work published, and write a CV that potential employers won't burn whilst laughing themselves to a stroke.

 

I tell them that first impressions are important. They laugh, because I'm a scruffy sod. I wear jeans, t-shirt and a leather waistcoat. I tell them that's my point. The first introduction people will get to them in their professional lives will be in writing. So, it doesn't really matter what I look like, my writing wears a suit, so I got my job as a senior lecturer and I get published.

[YT2095]

I tell them that first impressions are important. They laugh, because I'm a scruffy sod. I wear jeans, t-shirt and a leather waistcoat.

 

OI! that`s exactly the same as my dress code, less of the Scruffy:-p

[Royston]

same as the fact that you get docked for spelling mistakes, but, unless your spelling is so abysmal that you can't be understood by the examiner, you'd still pick up marks if what you're saying is worthy.

 

I get your point, but individual ability and the introduction of a basic language as an 'acceptable' means to communicate in an exam paper are non-comparable. English can be worked on and improved, if you introduce a limited form of English, and there's no doubt text really is limited, you're encouraging a lazy form of communication. As Glider pointed out it just wouldn't be acceptable at a professional level, so why should it be acceptable in an exam, albeit you may lose points. A genuine spelling mistake is not the same as using an abbreviated form of language.

 

Students should be encouraged to tackle a weakness in their English, not the schools accommodating for a weakness by loosening the standard of communication.

[Dak]

i see it less as labelling AOLspeak as an 'acceptable' way to communicate, and more of an accepted incorrect way of communicating.

 

eg, what of a person who's gramma, sintax, and mastery of the english language is uber-great, BUT, they rite liek this in teh xam?

 

i think it's arguable that they should get points for their gramma, sintax, and mastery, but not for their ability to write proper english (as they wouldn't have demonstrated it).

 

look at it like this: four english students take an exam, and their equal in all respects barring one:

 

student a writes his exam in perfect english

student b writes his exam in AOLspeak

studen c writes with my level of speling aptitude

student d writes in german.

 

student a would, obviously, get top marks.

student c would get good, but not top, marks (due to the poor spelling -- it's english, but not proper english)

student d gets no marks, 'cos he hasn't written in english -- proper or otherwize.

 

where does student b, with his AOLspeak, go?

 

i think equating it to german, ie completely not english -- is unrealistic, and that it goes better in the same category as crap spelling: accepted 'inproper' english.

 

in other words, all their saying is that, like bad spelling, AOLspeak doesn't stop somthing being english, it just makes it poor english.

 

also, i'm not sure wether this is english language or english literature that they're talking about... if it's english lit, then all that is required is that you can analyse and understand literature; the ability to actually use english should be irrelevent (eg, you can write an essay on english literature in german, french, spanish, etc, and have it be equally demonstrative of your ability to analyse eng.lit. as an essay in english).

[Airmid]

Like the rest of you, I was pretty disgusted at first too when I read about that proposal. But then I started remembering the "hippie spelling" that was so popular in the Netherlands in the 60's and 70's.

For some reason, the use of the letters x, c, and y (among others) was unacceptable to the hip youth. The "x" would be replaced by "ks", the "c" by either "s" or "k", depending on how it was pronounced, and the "y" either by "i" (vowel) or "j" (consonant). There were other alternative spelling rules too, but those probably wouldn't mean much to an english speaker.

There was quite a lot of peer pressure: if you used normal spelling you were not "hip" and had a hard time to be socially accepted. So many students used it, even in their papers and exams, and expected to get good grades, and got them. Maybe the teachers were a bit infected with the hippie-virus too?

Anyway, it seems that "hippie spelling" had a lasting effect on our official spelling. The dutch language goes through a major spelling revision every 50 years or so and some of the "hippie spelling" elements were officially incorporated. And now, for example, we write "seks", "piramide" and "katastrofe".

The moral of the story? Language is not static, but is in constant development, with new words being added and other words getting in disuse. The same goes for spelling, although I think English is an exception there. (And I think that's the reason why english spelling is so hard.) What the kids are writing today, might be good manners tomorrow!

 

Airmid.

[Glider]

OI! that`s exactly the same as my dress code, less of the Scruffy:-p

It's all relative

[GutZ]

I am sure people from like the 17th century would find out style quite brutish, but it's not the same. That crap people use now a days is for simplication and lazyness, where as langauge is a tool to communicate, in the best way possible. I rather not limit my ability to communicate, let alone look like an idiot (I do that enough on my own).

[Royston]

I am sure people from like the 17th century would find out style quite brutish, but it's not the same. That crap people use now a days is for simplication and lazyness, where as langauge is a tool to communicate, in the best way possible. I rather not limit my ability to communicate, let alone look like an idiot (I do that enough on my own).

 

Well this is the difference, language as already mentioned before isn't static, words become redundant and new words are introduced. I personally think that is healthy for a language, over simplifying in one foul swoop is not healthy. To express yourself properly in any exam, i.e to have the scope of vocabulary you get with English, is not possible with 'text speak.' and if you're going to use both, then just use proper English...i.e 'what' instead of 'wot' et.c. I guess when you've experienced the prepubescent mobile phone culture you get here in Britain, you may understand my concern with such a decision.

 

I know this will probably never be accepted, which is good IMO, but there shouldn't be accommodation for students who literally can't be bothered to learn proper English, even if they struggle with spelling or grammar for whatever reason, it's better than to replace it with a simplification so it's easier...I fail to see the point in that. Kids, who can't be bothered to learn proper English, would get similar marks to somebody who is bothered, but struggling with the language.

 

Crazy Frog giving a lecture on early Renaissance poetry makes me shudder

[Dak]

Well this is the difference, language as already mentioned before isn't static, words become redundant and new words are introduced. I personally think that is healthy for a language, over simplifying in one foul swoop is not healthy. To express yourself properly in any exam, i.e to have the scope of vocabulary you get with English, is not possible with 'text speak.' and if you're going to use both, then just use proper English...i.e 'what' instead of 'wot' et.c. I guess when you've experienced the prepubescent mobile phone culture you get here in Britain, you may understand my concern with such a decision.

 

I know this will probably never be accepted, which is good IMO, but there shouldn't be accommodation for students who literally can't be bothered to learn proper English, even if they struggle with spelling or grammar for whatever reason, it's better than to replace it with a simplification so it's easier...I fail to see the point in that. Kids, who can't be bothered to learn proper English, would get similar marks to somebody who is bothered, but struggling with the language.

 

to put another spin on the debate, 'wotz' the difference between the above highlighted 'lazynesses', and stuff like l8r, wot, thru, m8, etc?

[GutZ]

to put another spin on the debate, 'wotz' the difference between the above highlighted 'lazynesses', and stuff like l8r, wot, thru, m8, etc?

 

This is forum after all not an exam. I highly doubt anyone has a problem with people using that form of language throughout social interactions in the same regards that I don't speak perfect english or write perfect english when in a social situation. You should have the ability to do both, and you present that ability in school/test/work scenerio. There should be something that is regarded as a standard for communication, and atleast in my opinion "text" language is very limited.

 

I am not trying to say language as it is now is perfect but why degrade it. I never want to see a Nuclear reactor being accepted as "Thingy ma bobber". Well I guess it's all preference, but I am behind not allowing in school.

[Royston]

to put another spin on the debate, 'wotz' the difference between the above highlighted 'lazynesses', and stuff like l8r, wot, thru, m8, etc?

 

Well firstly I'm not writing in an exam, I'm writing on a forum. Secondly, l8r, m8, thru and wot, are not even words, they may be in Chavminster, but they are not words. Thirdly, the lazyness comes from a willing to learn proper English, as opposed to using a degraded text language, that is the lazyness I was referring to, not just missing out the odd letter or two, due to speed of writing.

 

I do agree with you to an extent, but I think the English language should be preserved as well as improved upon, not degraded to m8, wot u up 2 l8r, that should be kept to mobile phones, not brought into education IMO.

[YT2095]

It`s all a question of propriety really, I`ve no objection to the usage of either, I`m sure it has a place also.

 

I don`t think that Glider and I would go to a wedding dressed in our normal attire (unless it were a biker wedding).

[Glider]

Exactly.

 

There's a time and place for things. Essays, course work, research reports, CVs and job applications aren't really the place for the mangled English of SMS shorthand.

[Dak]

lol @ chavminster.

 

gutz and snail, my point was that, at some point, i'm sure contractions such as "you're", "shouldn't", "no.", "i.e.", etc, were viewed as 'lazy corruptions of the english language', yet now they've been adopted as standard. Thru is considered a 'lazy corruption' in en-en, but is widely used and understood none-the-less, and, iirc, is the standard in en-us, and actually makes more sence than 'through' as far as phonetics is concerned.

 

maybe, in the future, stuff like b4 will have gained the same exceptance as 'thru'?

[Royston]

I fully appreciate what you mean Dak, I think my main concern as well as Gliders and YT's points is the root of SMS language. If Halliday for example had derived SMS as a plausible syntax, i.e thorough limits and use of the language, it would be more acceptable, but the root is a few abbreviations for convenience which has spread to other words due to an explosion of mobile phone text messaging...which although I have no stats backing this up (I could have a look) that much of this shorthand has come from teenagers, and younger, probably why this was considered as a viable option for use in school, just due to popularity.

 

Remember this isn't a few words that will be introduced over time, there probably isn't any limit to what can or can't be abbreviated, so in that sense, it really isn't a viable language for educational use. If a few words seep through into everyday use (over time) like your example 'thru', then so be it, but a whole new form introduced over night just doesn't seem appropriate.

[GutZ]

I guess time will tell, hopefully I will be dead by that time, lol. Noooo! it's starting to convert me....

[Sequence]

That's ridiculous, I think spelling shouldn't put you down to much as long as you know the stuff but thats just not right.

[Phi for All]

Writing is communicating and it must be appropriate to the situation and be able to convey your meaning to your audience. If your whole audience is going to understand you if use text speak then it's probably appropriate. If it's for school or work you have to be a accurate as possible and that's where proper spelling insures that the most people will understand what you're writing.

 

When you lower the bandwidth of your communication by writing something down instead of speaking directly you've got to do everyth8ing you can to make sure it's understood. They're *your* ideas so you should be interested in making sure as many people as possible *get it*.

[Mokele]

It's also worth noting that the level of language you use affects not just how well your convey ideas, but how you are perceived. I actually just got a newsletter from one of the divisions of a scientific society I'm part of, written by the editor, and it's entirely in lower-case. No capitalization anywhere. And I must say, it certainly affected my view of the person writing it, and not in a good way. In a 'you won't make tenure and I'll have your job' way.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

It's also worth noting that the level of language you use affects not just how well your convey ideas, but how you are perceived. I actually just got a newsletter from one of the divisions of a scientific society I'm part of, written by the editor, and it's entirely in lower-case. No capitalization anywhere. And I must say, it certainly affected my view of the person writing it, and not in a good way. In a 'you won't make tenure and I'll have your job' way.

 

Mokele

 

So, my question is, did this sloppy writing technique just recently become an issue or is it just because I'm older and notice it more?

 

It seems to me everything I read is getting worse and worse, in terms of grammar, spelling, capitalization and etc. And I noticed it just after computers began to proliferate.

[Royston]

So, my question is, did this sloppy writing technique just recently become an issue or is it just because I'm older and notice it more?

 

It seems to me everything I read is getting worse and worse, in terms of grammar, spelling, capitalization and etc. And I noticed it just after computers began to proliferate.

 

I guess you'll have to define 'everything' i.e local newspapers, fiction et.c. what do you normally read ? When it comes to a professional level of writing, and I mean professional level i.e scientific articles, medical journals et.c then the level of what is expected has gone up. Articles are highly scrutinized in certain subjects, and if you fail to convey your point concisely and coherently you simply will not be taken seriously.

 

When I started studying just over a year ago, I had an entire module on stressing how important grammar is, so I feel language is intact, but when it comes to the use of language in the media, it basically follows the trend of language used by the public...feeding off each over if you will, so it could appear that language has taken a dip. However if you adopt similar grammar on a professional level, you simply won't be taken seriously.

 

As an afterthought, the harm I also see if the OP became realized, is the damage on phonetics as well as the written word.

[Ndi]

This is really odd. While bad in itself and the fact that English students need know less than me, who am not native makes me shiver, there are things that seem right.

 

In Physics class, if you demonstrate understanding of vectors and are able to draw them and issue a rule but go amok on calculations and miss the result, don't you get credit, though partial?

 

Same goes for most sciences. It is, however, arguable that while only Physics is based on Physics, everything is based on English (in England that is).

 

OTOH, several countries adopted the system enters he who wants, exits he who can. I doubt such a student, who never grasps reading and writing, will ever go anywhere far; what's the point in enforcing it? And even if a math genius ever rises from that ash, where's the loss in that?

 

Language, unfortunately, is "correct" as used. If enough people do something, it will be acknowledged as correct or accepted. Complex forms are dropped, verbs get regular as time goes and one rarely hears specials being used in real life. Several months in UK and I could count the number of times I heard "I shall" on my fingers.

 

I'll stop before going on forever, still, I'd point out that if there is no standard, how does one define "correct"? Wouldn't the new language become standard and the old one become .. well, the Old English?

 

"I'm just watching the TV". "Awww, dats de ol' inglish. Duude, u r rili oldah then me, we wach de 2be now"