"Textese" is Not Good and here's why...

[Irony's Acolyte]

U hav to understnd. This is simply teh English language evlving. Is thr rlly anythng wrong w/ shortening txt? Sure it isn't 'prpr', but the main purpose of language isn't 2 b 'splld rit' but 2 get ur message across. And if thts through 'txt-speak', thn wut's the problem?

 

[spartan231490]

I've seen multiple threads decrying the use of "textese" or "txt spk" (retching noise), and I'm glad. On of the reasons I like the escapist is that the user base seems to have a level of respect for intelligence, and that kind of respect is a rare thing on the internet.

But then today I actually saw this thread (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.313258-Textese-seems-to-help-develop-english-skills-not-hinder) actually DEFENDING the use of text speak, quoting "scholarly" articles (that were not seemingly not peer-reviewed). These articles claim that the use of text speak shorthand, such as "plz," is actually helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," and, thus, text speak is not leading to a degeneration of language.

I'm not a researcher, nor am I a linguist or sociologist. But what I am is a teacher, and I'd like to offer up an anecdote:

During my first year of teaching I taught secondary English. Of course, when you have class full of 16 and 17-year-old students, everyone is going to have a cell phone, and the majority of my students were fluent in "textese."

I, of course, had them write multiple essays and papers over the course of the year, and on more than one occasion, I saw the use of slang and shorthand WITHIN ACADEMIC WRITING. When I explained to the class why this was unacceptable, several students attempted to argue with me, asserting "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" They were actually trying to justify the use of slang/shorthand/textese in academic writing.

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

This line of thinking, this mindset, is definitely degenerative. Maybe not to the terminal point that some people believe, but it certainly isn't helping people learn reading and writing skills, as some people attempt to claim.

Brevity is not equivalent to simplicity. Do you not teach your students to write concisely? I'm not arguing that text speak should be used in academic writing, especially not an English class, I'm merely pointing out the fact that just because it's longer, that doesn't mean it will be more complex. The clouds are dark and water is falling from the sky and we call it rain. That is not a complex, or a good sentence, but it is lengthy.

That said, I think certain forms of text speak are acceptable in some academic circles. I don't find it completely abhorrent in scientific circles, where the purpose is to convey the meaning in the most brief and concise manner possible, but it is totally unacceptable in an English class, where the purpose is to show your ability to wield formal English.

 

[Rawne1980]

I speak, and write differently based on the situation. We all do. If you don't you'll have trouble living in the real world.

I just wanted to quote this and follow it up with a healthy dose of "what are you yammering on about"?

So, in order to live in this "real" world of yours we need to switch between typing like a drunk Ferret on a keyboard and typing normally?

I beg to differ.

When I was growing up we didn't have the internet or mobile phones. The work we did in School was put down on paper as full words.

We managed quite well in this "real world" until people decided that shortening words was quicker. Now not only do people use it because it is quicker it is used as actual literacy. Schools have been given pieces of work with the spelling all in this nonsense "textese".

Most people speak and write the same as they have done for many years BECAUSE we live in the real world.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Its an evolution of the English Language that was birthed on the internet, and is seeping into real life through phones and soon papers. It sucks, it is grammatically horrifying, but it is coming, and the only way we can keep the english language intact is to avoid its influences and keep communicating the way we do already.

The English language is not intact. It's an ever evolving bastard language. Text speak does my head in. But what also bothers me is when people rail against slang words being put in the dictionary because "it's not proper English". Proper English is a fleeting thing. It changes in less than a generation and always has. It annoys me that people don't seem to realise that writers like Shakespeare, Marlowe and their contemporaries weren't using fancy Shakespeare talk that students would struggle to understand. That's just what English looked like in the 1500/1600's.

I respect and agree with the sentiment of your post, but not everyone in Shakespearean spoke like the characters in his works. Shakespeare frequently added and removed syllables to improve the "flow" of some lines. Sorry, I'm being a bit picky here, but I would have quoted your post anyway because I pretty much agree with you, but I just feel like I should offer some sort of conversational input as apposed to just writing "This".

OT; I've been guilty of using it in the past (generally during games where there isn't enough to type out a well-worded, correctly spelt version "ZOMG CREEPER!!1! D:"), but I despise it's use when it's clear you could just as easily type even a basically structured statement like; "God, that *insert name here*'s an annoying pr*ck", instead of; "f*kin *insert name here*s so much a f*g".

 

[Hipsy_Gypsy]

The simple fact is that textese is only used for simple words. It doesn't help the manipulation of phonetics because it only deals with words that a fucking 6 year old should be able to spell.

By all means, use textese while using a phone, it's quicker etc (I don't personally), but don't bring that shit into any other written medium.

I'm the same. It's quite sad; I actually use full punctuation with semi-colons, hyphenating words, apostrophes and so on and so forth. However, if I am trying to text as quickly as possible or have run out of room, I'll shorten everything into "txtspk". I am, after all, texting.

Snippy!

OP: Anyroad, I can't believe that they actually tried to argue with the infamous

"Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?"

I cannot stand that sort of reasoning. Where I can see where some people are coming from, I really don't think that it's nearly a good enough excuse to substitute that with actually trying to write properly. If that makes sense?


x

 

[cdstephens]

It's hard to complain about how the way our language is communicated is changing when that's what language does; evolve. Otherwise we would all be speaking Latin or Greek still, or to a lesser extreme Shakespearean English.

That being said, I think that as long as the writing is not in a formal context (research paper, resume, email to your boss, letter to a loved one, etc) then it's completely fine with me. I mean, my girlfriend and I write love letters to each other and we use emoticons in our letters (like XD and >_<) all the time, if that counts for anything.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Txtings is fine when writing a txt and trying to save space. Using it in anything else where space and limitations are not an issue, then its retarded to use txt speak. It makes you look like a simple minded retard and automatically makes any opinion you wrote automatically dismissed and not worth reading. And yes it may not matter on the net, or in a txt or email to friends. But when you start working its important to communicate properly.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

And language changes all the time, new words being added to the dictionary and old words becoming arcane is not new. Here's something said in Old English

But text speech doesn't add new words to the language. It's a misspelling of commonly used words for no reason at all. I

 

[Wintermoot]

I refrain from using it since it gives a unprofessional look to my posts.

 

[QuantumT]

Claiming that the other person's evidence in support of the other person's point isn't sound, then offering up only anecdotal evidence in support of your own seems a bit inconsistent.

Not defending text speak or anything, just saying that if you're going to attack someone's evidence, you should probably offer up something better than anecdotes.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I speak, and write differently based on the situation. We all do. If you don't you'll have trouble living in the real world.

I just wanted to quote this and follow it up with a healthy dose of "what are you yammering on about"?

So, in order to live in this "real" world of yours we need to switch between typing like a drunk Ferret on a keyboard and typing normally?

I beg to differ.

When I was growing up we didn't have the internet or mobile phones. The work we did in School was put down on paper as full words.

We managed quite well in this "real world" until people decided that shortening words was quicker. Now not only do people use it because it is quicker it is used as actual literacy. Schools have been given pieces of work with the spelling all in this nonsense "textese".

Most people speak and write the same as they have done for many years BECAUSE we live in the real world.

What I'm saying is when you talk to your friends, and you talk to your boss you speak differently. When you write a text to your mate asking if he wants to go out to the pub you use a different tone and standard to writing academically. Notice how young kids speak the same way to everyone because they haven't learned that skill yet. Using slang and "textspeak" is fine as long as you know when to use it and when not to.

 

[omega 616]

It conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters

Lets face it most people these days just "fill up food courts" (as Bill Burr puts it), they are never going to progress the human race in anyway.

Keeping that in mind to they really need to use perfect speech all the? I am not saying using text speak in an essay was okay 'cos it's not. What I am saying is these people are going to live life using the most basic of words, they will never even know "hyperbole" or "asinine" exist let alone what they mean so do they all need to be sat around writing and speaking in a very perfect way? No. Do you sit around and talk to family and friends, speaking perfectly, throwing in massive complex words? No.

You should also watch this,
Stephen Fry says what I just said in a much more eloquent and articulate way, which is much more likely to sway your view point. For instance at one point he comments on how people always get excited by language when other people use it wrongly, they never do it "for the sound sex of it" (his words, not mine) ... trust me, listen to it, if anybody can give new perspective it's this man!

Men like Stephen should rule the world!

 

[Karma168]

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

I'm going to be 'that guy' and point out that this is a similar reason as to why there is a major difference between 'English' English and 'American' English. Americans have over time dropped the use of more complex methods of spelling in favour of simpler methods (e.g 'f' in favour of 'ph' (i.e Sulfur instead of Sulphur))

Textese could be considered the same (up to a point), if the text is clear and legible by 99% of English speakers then is this a problem? I agree that texts like "cnt blve tht hapnd, th stry didnt mke snce" is just plain ridiculous but some in some text the only short hand used is a lack of punctuation (i.e youre instead of you're) or one word meaning multiple things (i.e your denoting both ownership and as a contraction of you are). There are already words with multiple meanings, it isn't that bad if others gain that trait is it?

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Well you're an English teacher which is where you're standards for correct grammar come from, maybe my being a journalism student gives me a similar view on citing sources and backing up claims. But you're right, this is just a forum discussion, not a formal debate. But maybe don't make absolute assertions, using words like definitely and certainly, and then get defensive when someone points out your argument is no more definite or certain than the one you're trying to debunk.

Fair enough. My tone and usage of adjectives such as "definitely" did imply a level of certainty or objective validity in expressing my opinion, and that was my mistake. I'm also sorry for getting defensive.

Wow, I think this may be the first time I've become involved in a semi-heated forum discussion that resolved itself quite peacefully.

 

[Lawnmooer]

I hate "Textese"

I don't ever use it. I always try to spell everything correctly (Whilst also using correct grammar and punctuation) even at times where I have to tell people things through text with less than a second to do so (Such as when I'm leading a group/raid in a MMO, since I'm usually tanking I have 1 Global Cooldown in which to type to people that may be doing things wrong (No I don't use Ventrillo since I don't own a mic))

My friends all think I'm weird because of this (Stuff like Facebook messages and e-mails I send all use correct spellings, whereas in return I get some hieroglyphs to decipher) they ask me why I do it, I say it help me to spell and also keeps my vocabulary expanding.

They often accidentally use "Textese" in the middle of essays and assignments they are writing which results in it not being accepted. They also all have very poor spelling (When they are doing said assignments they tend to ask me how to spell a lot of things, they also don't understand at least 30% of the words I use when I'm giving them advice on what to write about)

I guess I wouldn't mind it as much if people only used it when they needed to (Such as lack of time or if they have limited amounts of characters to use for the message) but as it is now they use it everywhere (Some even use acronyms like "BRB" "LOL" and "OMG" when speaking...)

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Do you sit around and talk to family and friends, speaking perfectly, throwing in massive complex words? No.

Actually, I do.

I frequently have complex discussions with my wife and my friends that include massive complex words. And while I don't speak perfectly at all times, I do strive to avoid slang as a rule, unless I'm tired, angry, frustrated, or otherwise in some state that pushes me to not care about how effective my spoken words are.

 

[BRex21]

I have interviewed potential employees who put "textese" into resumes and cover letters. It is simply not appropriate, and don't get me started on the people who SAY lol. When I text I spell the whole word, and tend to look down on people who don't during anything remotely serious.
Oh, and to clarify, this isn't fast food or anything, I work in the BioTech industry, with science and all that jazz, D00D U SHD T0T411Y Hier ME wont get you very far.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

...today I actually saw this thread (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.313258-Textese-seems-to-help-develop-english-skills-not-hinder) actually DEFENDING the use of text speak, quoting "scholarly" articles (that were not seemingly not peer-reviewed). These articles claim that the use of text speak shorthand, such as "plz," is actually helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," and, thus, text speak is not leading to a degeneration of language.

Why does this strike you as not peer reviewed? A very brief check of the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning where the results were published at least seem like it has a peer review process [http://jcal.info/manuscript_review_policy/index.htm]. I'm not an expert at all, but it seems legit on its face.

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

This line of thinking, this mindset, is definitely degenerative. Maybe not to the terminal point that some people believe, but it certainly isn't helping people learn reading and writing skills, as some people attempt to claim.

I guess I'm just not thrilled about you presenting your personal anecdote as "debunking" the study. Traditionally, that word is usually employed with a little more scholarly perspective. I 100% sympathize with your frustration seeing non-academic language in an academic setting, and I acknowledge that headlines like "Textese gr8 training 4 poets of 2moro" could make a teacher want to tear his/her hair out. I guess I'd just prefer to see more people (especially educators) "debunking" the lousy science writing rather than the source study.

The less said about the news writeups the better - they're sub-par at best. Still, I think the actual study is not implausible. From what I could tell from the abstract, the core data of the study the media latched on to was that frequent texters read on average no worse and sometimes better than infrequent texters. I can believe that; contractions and abbreviations can train our eyes for the most salient letters of common phrases without having to read whole words one letter at a time. That sounds less controversial (and less exciting), right?

TLDR: I'm not convinced the actual study is BS, but I think it's obfuscated rather than revealed by bad science writing

I never used the term debunking, nor was I striving to establish my anecdote as a basis for substantiated scholarly opinion. I was just sharing my personal experience and opinion on the matter.

Browse the thread on the conversation between me and Spot1990 if you want more details in this regard.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I've seen multiple threads decrying the use of "textese" or "txt spk" (retching noise), and I'm glad. On of the reasons I like the escapist is that the user base seems to have a level of respect for intelligence, and that kind of respect is a rare thing on the internet.

But then today I actually saw this thread (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.313258-Textese-seems-to-help-develop-english-skills-not-hinder) actually DEFENDING the use of text speak, quoting "scholarly" articles (that were not seemingly not peer-reviewed). These articles claim that the use of text speak shorthand, such as "plz," is actually helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," and, thus, text speak is not leading to a degeneration of language.

I'm not a researcher, nor am I a linguist or sociologist. But what I am is a teacher, and I'd like to offer up an anecdote:

During my first year of teaching I taught secondary English. Of course, when you have class full of 16 and 17-year-old students, everyone is going to have a cell phone, and the majority of my students were fluent in "textese."

I, of course, had them write multiple essays and papers over the course of the year, and on more than one occasion, I saw the use of slang and shorthand WITHIN ACADEMIC WRITING. When I explained to the class why this was unacceptable, several students attempted to argue with me, asserting "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you as you understand that I mean?" They were actually trying to justify the use of slang/shorthand/textese in academic writing.

In my experience, "textese" does NOT train a person in the "manipulation of phonetics." What it does is condition a person to believe that everything can (and perhaps should) be communicated as simply as possible. It also conditions a person to believe that it doesn't matter HOW something is communicated; the implied message is all that matters.

This line of thinking, this mindset, is definitely degenerative. Maybe not to the terminal point that some people believe, but it certainly isn't helping people learn reading and writing skills, as some people attempt to claim.

Brevity is not equivalent to simplicity. Do you not teach your students to write concisely? I'm not arguing that text speak should be used in academic writing, especially not an English class, I'm merely pointing out the fact that just because it's longer, that doesn't mean it will be more complex. The clouds are dark and water is falling from the sky and we call it rain. That is not a complex, or a good sentence, but it is lengthy.

That said, I think certain forms of text speak are acceptable in some academic circles. I don't find it completely abhorrent in scientific circles, where the purpose is to convey the meaning in the most brief and concise manner possible, but it is totally unacceptable in an English class, where the purpose is to show your ability to wield formal English.

To an extent, I agree. Concision is very important and I do try to teach that.

But neither brevity, nor simplicity, nor complexity, nor any characteristic of written language is as important as its effectiveness, and for language to be effective, it needs to be standardized: there must be a standard set of rules of definitions. The alternative is confusion and semantic miscommunication.